SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
Westat has conducted surveys of Service members and their spouses designed to measure perceptions of how a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) might affect military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, family readiness, military community life, recruitment, and retention. The surveys were not designed to be a referendum on the issue of DADT repeal, nor can survey results alone answer the question of whether repeal should or should not occur. The surveys can, however, contribute to the decisionmaking process by providing information on what Service members and their spouses think will be the likely impact of repeal.

Service Member Survey Findings
Several findings from the Service member survey were consistent across the major subject areas of the Comprehensive Review Working Group review and across different groupings of Service members. Service members rated their current units highly across the main subject areas of unit cohesion, effectiveness, readiness, and morale. Ratings of current unit morale were somewhat lower than the ratings for other areas, but were still relatively high. A regression analysis of the factors that influence Service members’ ratings of their current units found that having good NCOs and having good officers were the strongest predictors of Service members’ immediate unit cohesion ratings; Service members’ ratings of their current units’ cohesion was the strongest predictor of ratings of current unit effectiveness, morale, and readiness. Service members who rated their current unit cohesion as high were more likely to rate other aspects of the current unit as high. Although other Service member characteristics were associated with the assessments of their current units, these relationships were not as influential. A majority of Service members perceive that the effect of a repeal of DADT will be neutral—that is, it will have either “no effect” or will affect their immediate unit “equally as positively as negatively.” A smaller, but still substantial, group said that repeal will affect their unit “very negatively/ negatively,” and an even smaller group said that repeal will affect their immediate unit “very positively/ positively.” This pattern of responses holds true across all the major areas of interest, including unit cohesion, unit effectiveness (both for those who have been deployed to a combat zone and those who have not), personal and unit readiness, and personal morale. This same pattern of the relative size of neutral, negative, and positive perceptions also extends to questions relating to the impact of repeal on retention and recruitment. The pattern can be seen clearly in Figure 1, which summarizes survey results concerning the impact of DADT repeal across the main subject areas. Note that neutral is the sum of “no effect” and “equally as positively as negatively” responses and that for
Page 1

retention, positive responses were indications that the Service member would stay longer and negative responses were indications that the Service member would leave sooner.
Figure 1 Expected Impact of DADT Repeal Across the Main Subject Areas
% Positively % Neutral % Negatively % Don't know

19% Unit Cohesion

54%
27%

12 % Effectiveness ‐ Combat Deployed

53%
35%

17% Effectiveness ‐ Non‐com bat Deployed

62%
20%

7% Readiness

71%
22%

5% Morale 11% 4% Retention* 11%

57%
28%

62%
24%

When the study team assessed the experience of having served in a unit with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian, the data also showed a consistent pattern across the unit characteristics of task cohesion, morale, and performance. Large majorities of Service members with such experience rated their units highly across all three characteristics, although unit morale was rated somewhat lower than cohesion or performance. These Service members’ unit ratings did not vary by whether the unit member believed to be gay or lesbian was a leader, coworker, or subordinate. When asked how much Service members’ beliefs that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected the unit, about one half of Service members responded “not at all.” When we divided Service members into three groups on the basis of their experience serving with a gay or lesbian Service member, those Service members who currently serve with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were consistently the least likely to believe that the impact of the repeal of DADT would be negative, followed by those who have served with gay or lesbian Service members in the past. Those who said they have never served with a gay or lesbian Service member
Page 2

were the most likely to have negative perceptions about the impact of a repeal. Although Marine Corps members were consistently more likely than other Service members to perceive negative effects of repeal across all the major subject areas, this same “current/past/never” pattern held true for Marines as well. Regression analysis confirmed and extended these findings. Five multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to identify Service member characteristics that were statistically significant predictors of the following post-repeal outcomes of interest: unit cohesion, non-combat effectiveness, combat effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness. The results were generally consistent across these five models. Overall, Service members’ experience in serving in a unit with a leader, coworker, and/or subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian was the strongest predictor of their perceptions about the impact of a repeal of DADT on their unit. The influence of gender, minority status, and age were also consistent across all five models. Being female and being a minority were associated with more positive assessments of the impact of DADT repeal, while rising age was associated with more negative assessments. Component was not significant in the unit cohesion, combat effectiveness, and readiness regressions. For non-combat effectiveness and morale, the Reserve Component had more negative perceptions about the impact of repeal than did Active Duty Service members. Currently serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian was a significant and positive predictor of Service members’ views about the impact of repeal in all five post-repeal equations. Having good NCOs/POs and having good officers over a unit were also positively associated with Service members’ perceptions about the impact of repeal in all five equations. Repeal’s impact on retention was analyzed using a logistic regression model. In the regression results, the Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Service members had odds ratios that were less than one, indicating they were less likely than Army Service members to be considering leaving post repeal. The odds that a Marine Corps Service member was considering leaving post repeal were 43% higher than the odds that an Army Service member was considering leaving post repeal. Service members who had served in the past with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian and those who have never served with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian had greater odds of considering leaving the military post repeal (29% and 36%, respectively) than did Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. More details about survey findings are presented next, organized around eight survey topics.

Page 3

How do Service members assess current cohesion, effectiveness, morale, and readiness in their immediate units? Unit Cohesion Service members rated cohesion in their current immediate units positively (average score of 3.94 on a 5-point scale). Service members rated task cohesion in their immediate units slightly more positively than social cohesion; also, they rated unit horizontal cohesion more positively than unit vertical cohesion. Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian (who may or may not be in the Service member’s immediate unit) rated their immediate units as being somewhat less cohesive than did those who served in the past or have never served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. This finding was confirmed in the regression analysis of Service members’ assessments of unit cohesion in their immediate units, where currently serving with a gay or lesbian Service member was a significant, negative (though small) predictor of current unit cohesion. Overall, having good NCOs and having good officers were the strongest predictors of Service members’ immediate unit cohesion ratings. Unit Effectiveness Large majorities of Service members currently deployed to a combat zone rated their immediate units as “very effective/effective” in a field environment or out to sea (83.7%), during a crisis or negative event (78.1%), and in combat situations (69.5%). Large majorities of Service members who have never been deployed or never been deployed to a combat zone also rated their immediate units as “very effective/effective” on a daily basis (88.0%) and during a crisis or negative event (80.9%). Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian rated their immediate units as being somewhat less effective than did those who served in the past or have never served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. This finding was not confirmed in the regression analysis of current unit effectiveness, where (when controlling for all other variables in the regression equation) currently serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian was a significant—and positive—predictor of both combat and non-combat effectiveness. Current unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of both combat and non-combat unit effectiveness.

Page 4

Unit and Personal Morale Service members were most likely to rate current unit morale and own morale as “very high/high” (43.5% and 56.5%, respectively). National Guard members’ ratings for unit morale (54.1% “very high/high”) and personal morale (66.8% “very high/high”) were notably higher than those for the Active Duty or Reserve Components. Unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of unit morale. Having good officers was the second strongest predictor. Unit and Personal Readiness In general, Service members were quite positive about both unit and personal readiness—69.7% said their units were “very well prepared/well prepared”; 82.5% said the same about their personal readiness. Unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of military readiness. What is the likely impact of the repeal of DADT on unit cohesion, effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness? Perceived effect of a repeal of DADT was similar for unit cohesion, effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness: A majority of Service members said repeal of DADT would have a neutral impact—that is, have “no effect” on or would affect “equally as positively as negatively”—all items associated with unit cohesion, effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness with two exceptions—effectiveness “in a field environment or out to sea” for those who have been combat deployed (44.4% neutral) and “how Service members in your immediate unit trust each other” (48.8% neutral). A smaller but substantial percentage of Service members said the impact would be negative (mostly ranging between 20% to 33% across the four unit characteristics). A small percentage of Service members said the impact would be positive (ranging from 5% to 19% across the four unit characteristics). Service members currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were consistently less likely to say that unit cohesion, unit effectiveness, their personal morale, and military readiness would be affected negatively by repeal. Regression analysis confirmed this finding. “Currently serving with” was a small but significant and positive predictor of Service members’ perceptions about the impact of repeal on unit cohesion, effectiveness, morale, and readiness.

Page 5

Generally, Service members in the Marine Corps were more likely than other Service members to have negative perceptions about the impact of repeal on unit cohesion, effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness. Service members who have been combat deployed responded most negatively about the impact of repeal on unit effectiveness “in a field environment or out to sea” (44.3% overall and 59.4% for Marines). In general, female Service members were substantially less likely to perceive negative impacts following repeal than male Service members not only for unit cohesion, effectiveness, personal morale, and readiness, but for all of the issues asked about in the survey. What is the likely impact of the repeal of DADT on retention and recruitment? Retention Regarding their current plans, 58.7% of Service members said they will definitely or probably stay in the military until retirement; 19.6% probably or definitely intend to leave at the end of their current obligation. Regardless of current military career intentions, the majority of Service members (62.3%) said their military career plans will not change after repeal. 18.5% of all Service members reported they would consider leaving sooner than their current intentions if repeal occurs. This is the group of Service members who “switched” their military career intentions when considering DADT repeal. They were not considering leaving, but said repeal will cause them to “think about leaving sooner” or “leave sooner.” Among all Service members, Marine Corps members were most likely to say they will consider leaving sooner or will leave sooner than planned (38.1%) if repeal occurs. If DADT is repealed, those currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to consider staying in the military longer, less likely to consider leaving sooner, and more likely to say that their career plans will not change, compared with Service members who are not currently serving with a someone believed to be gay or lesbian. 7.6% of Service members said all factors they selected as most important in their decisions about future military service were less important than repeal. For these Service members, if repeal occurs, it will be the most important factor in their career decisions, according to the survey results.

Page 6

Recruitment A strong majority of Service members said they are currently willing to recommend military service to others (ranging from 79.5% of Marines to 91.9% of Coast Guard members). Among Service members currently willing to recommend military service, 57.3% said repeal will have a neutral effect on their willingness to recommend military service; 26.2% said it will have a negative effect (39.2% of Marines said it will have a negative effect). What is the likely impact of the repeal of DADT on family readiness? Currently, 70.3% of Service members said they usually attend military social functions— by themselves (21.0%) or with family members (49.3%), and 48.1% said they usually attend military family programs—by themselves (8.0%) or with family members (40.1%). Among the Service members who attend military social programs with family members, 46.9% said they will likely continue to attend such programs, 32.8% said they are likely to stop attending, and 6.1% will attend alone if a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also attend. Among the Service members who participate in military family programs with family members, 41.1% said they will likely continue to do so, 37.0% are likely to stop participating, and 9.3% will participate alone if a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also participate. Marine Corps members were more likely than members in the other Services to say they will not continue to participate in social events if a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also participate. What will Service members most likely do if DADT is repealed and they are assigned to share sleeping quarters or bath facilities with open bay showers with a gay or lesbian Service member? Sleeping quarters 38.3% of Service members have shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian. 66.6% of Service members who have shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian (group 1) said they would most likely take no action or would discuss expectations about behavior, compared with 44.6% of Service members who have not shared sleeping quarters (group 2).

Page 7

17.9% of group 1 and 32.9% of group 2 said they would likely talk to a leader to see if they have other options if assigned to share sleeping quarters with a gay or lesbian Service member. Bath facilities 50.1% of Service members have been assigned to share bath facilities also used by someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. Differences were less notable between those who have already been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower (group 1) and those who have not (group 2). Among group 1, 73.2% would take no action, talk to the person, or avoid taking showers at the same time, compared with 62.4% in group 2. 14.5% of group 1 and 20.1% of group 2 said they would likely talk to a leader to see if they have other options. Wartime situation In a wartime situation, Service members would be more likely to either take no action or discuss expectations about behaviors regarding sharing of sleeping quarters and bath facilities. What will Service members most likely do if they lived in on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member was living with a partner on base? About 18% of Service members said they would probably move off base if they lived in on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also lived there. This was true whether the Service member has mostly lived on base for the last 24 months or not. When asked what they would do if a gay or lesbian Service member moved on base with his or her partner, a majority of Service members who have mostly lived on base for the last 24 months said they would get to know them like any other neighbors (38.7%), would make a special effort to get to know them (1.4%), or, even if they felt uncomfortable, would stay on base because other factors are more important in their decisions about where to live (22.0%). If DADT is repealed, how easy or difficult will it be for leadership as they start implementing the change in policy? Service members consider it more likely to be easy than difficult for leadership to “hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Page 8

Most difficult challenge for leadership: “Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers (50.1% of Service members and 65.1% of Marines said this would be “very difficult/difficult”). Next most difficult challenge for leadership: “Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation” (45.8% of all Service members and 61.6% of Marines said this would be “very difficult/difficult”). The warfare community was more likely than the non-warfare community to say these challenges will be difficult. Service members who said “all” or “most” of the officers over their immediate unit are good leaders were less likely to say that implementation will be “very difficult/difficult” across all five implementation items asked about in the survey, compared with Service members who said only “some,” “a few,” or “no” officers over their unit were good leaders. What is the past experience with Service members believed to be gay or lesbian? The data showed a similar pattern across the unit characteristics of task cohesion, morale, and performance: Service members’ ratings of the units in which they served with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian did not vary by whether the unit member believed to be gay or lesbian was a leader, coworker, or subordinate. This was true for the three unit characteristics of task cohesion, morale, and performance. Large majorities rated these units highly across all three characteristics, although unit morale was rated somewhat lower than task cohesion or performance. When asked how much Service members’ beliefs that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected the unit, about one half of the Service members responded “not at all.” Less than 20% of Service members said the effect of serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian was “mostly negative” across all three issues of task cohesion, morale, and unit performance. For all three characteristics, Marine Corps members were more likely than other Service members to say that Service members’ beliefs that a unit member was gay or lesbian had an effect and that the effect was “mostly negative.” Those Service members who served in combat with a unit member of any rank who was believed to be gay or lesbian also rated unit performance highly (80.2% reported the unit

Page 9

performed “very well/ well” in combat); when considering past experience in combat, differences between the Marine Corps and other Services were not as large.

Spouse Survey Findings
Like the Service member survey findings, findings from the spouse survey on the expected impact of DADT repeal were consistent across the survey’s major subject areas. A large majority of spouses (generally about three quarters) said that the effect of a repeal of DADT will be neutral—that is, it will have no effect on their family readiness, their preferences, or their actions. A smaller group, usually less than 20%, said that repeal will have a negative effect, and a very small group (between 1% and 5%) said the impact will be positive. This pattern of responses holds true across all the major areas of interest, including family readiness; attendance at social events, deployment-support programs, and family support programs; retention; and referrals. The pattern can be seen clearly in Figure 2, which summarizes survey results concerning the impact of DADT repeal across the main subject areas. Note that for attendance questions, a “positive response” indicates that spouses said they would attend these events more often after repeal and a negative response indicates that they would attend less often after repeal. For retention and referral, “positive responses” indicate that spouses said they would want their military spouse to stay longer or that they would be more likely to recommend military service; “negative responses” indicate that spouses said they would want their military spouse to leave sooner or that they would be less likely to recommend military service. Spouses were also asked about their actions if DADT is repealed, they live in on-base housing, and a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with their partner. In this situation, a majority of spouses (64.9%) said they “would stay on-base”; 20.8% said they “would try to move out.” Another 14.3% of spouses responded that that they did not know what they would do. (This question had no “neutral” response category.) Spouses were more likely than Service members to report having family members, friends, or acquaintances whom they believed to be gay or lesbian, and spouse perceptions regarding the impact of DADT varied by the level of acquaintance (i.e., having one acquaintance believed to be gay or lesbian, having more than one, and having none). In general, spouses with more than one such acquaintance were consistently more likely to indicate that a repeal of DADT would have no impact. For example, 81.6% of spouses with more than one acquaintance believed to be gay or lesbian said repeal would have no effect on their family readiness, compared with 73.3% of those with one such acquaintance and 69.8% of those who reported having no acquaintances believed to be gay or lesbian.
Page 10

A summary of the major spouse survey findings is presented next. The findings are organized into four subject areas: spouse acquaintance with gay or lesbian individuals, retention and referrals, family readiness and military life, and housing. Acquaintance With Gay or Lesbian Individuals 71.1% of spouses said they have one (12.1%) or more than one (59.0%) family member, friend, or acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. When asked whether their military spouse worked with someone they believed to be a gay or lesbian Service member, 34.8% said yes, 26.4% said no, and more than a third of spouses (38.8%) said they did not know. Of those who said yes, more than half (51.7%) reported not knowing the individual well at all, and 45.7% said that the individual participated in military social activities the same amount as most other Service members. Spouses’ views regarding the potential impact of a DADT repeal varied by whether spouses have family members, friends, or acquaintances whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. In general, spouses with more than one such acquaintance were less likely to indicate that a repeal of DADT would have an impact regardless of the issue being asked about.
Page 11

Retention and Referrals Overall, a majority of spouses (65.9%) feel “very positive/positive” about their spouses’ military service, while 30.9% feel “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings.” Coast Guard and Air Force spouses had the highest percentages of positive feelings (78.2% and 74.2%, respectively); Army and Marine Corps spouses had the lowest (61.1% and 63.4%, respectively). A majority of spouses (67.0%) indicated a preference for their spouses to remain in the military until retirement. Spouses indicated a variety of factors they and their military spouses consider when making decisions about future service in the military. The three most frequently cited factors were “current pay and benefits” (49.3%), “retirement benefits” (38.9%), and “medical care” (29.2%). A majority of spouses said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/unimportant” (40.1%) or “neither important or unimportant” (27.7%) to them in making decisions about their spouses’ future in the military. Overall, 73.8% of spouses said a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their preference for their military spouses’ future military plans; 11.8% said they would want their military spouse to leave military service sooner. 67.2% said that a repeal of DADT would not affect their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend. Family Readiness and Military Life 61.4% of spouses rated their families as being “very ready/ready” to handle the challenges of military life, while 26.8% indicated their families were about “an equal mix of feeling ready and unready,” and 5.7% of spouses said their families were “very unready/unready.” 47.9% of spouses said they have attended very few or no informal military social events in the past 12 months; 60.5% said they have attended very few or no deployment-support gatherings during their military spouses’ most recent deployment. 57.8% of spouses said that family support programs are “very important/important,” 29.7% said they are “neither important nor unimportant,” and 12.5% said they are “very unimportant/unimportant.” A large majority of spouses (77.2%) said that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their family readiness. This percentage was higher among those spouses who rated their families

Page 12

as “very ready/ready” (80.7%) than it was among spouses who rated their families as “about an equal mix of ready and unready” (76.6%) and “very unready/unready” (68.0%). A majority of spouses said the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would not affect how often they attend informal military social events (72.0%) or deploymentsupport activities (76.4%). However, the spouses who reported having attended more of these events in the last 12 months were more likely to say that the presence of a gay or lesbian partner would negatively affect their attendance. A majority of spouses (75.1%) said that the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would not affect their participation in family support programs; 15.2% said they would participate less often. 43.0% of spouses did not think any special activities or communications would be necessary to prepare or assist spouses in understanding the new policy if DADT is repealed. Smaller percentages said they would like the military to provide information about the repeal in printed materials (37.4%), on the Web (34.3%), and through Family Readiness Group/WorkLife Program leaders (21.2%). When spouses who believe that repeal would reduce their family readiness were asked what family readiness programs they would turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness, more than half of these spouses (54.6%) said they would turn to Family Support Programs, 45.4% would turn to Military OneSource, 39.4% to deployment-support programs, and 31.3% to on-base chapels. A majority of spouses (68.5%) said they would turn to their military spouses if they have concerns about the impact of DADT repeal. Smaller percentages said they would not need someone to talk to (31.4%) or that they would turn to a family member (26.8%).

Housing
79.7% of spouses live in civilian housing, 16.2% live in on-base housing, and 4.1% live in military housing off-base. 24.1% of Active Duty spouses currently live in on-base housing. Much smaller percentages (less than 2%) of Reserve and National Guard spouses live in on-base housing. A majority of spouses (71.9%) said they prefer living in civilian housing, 21.6% preferred onbase housing, and 6.5% preferred military housing off-base. Spouses most commonly selected “the safety of the community” (58.5%) and “cost of housing” (56.8%) as the most important factors they would consider given a choice on where to live. 44.2% of spouses said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/unimportant” to them in choosing where to live, and 27.7% said it would be “neither important nor unimportant.”
Page 13

A majority of spouses (64.9%) said they would stay on-base if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner, whereas 20.8% said they would try to move out. 63.1% of spouses said if they lived on-base with a gay or lesbian Service member and partner as neighbors they would get to know the gay or lesbian Service member like any other neighbor.

Page 14

1

Project Introduction

In the January 27, 2010, State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he will work with Congress to repeal 10 U.S.C. §654, the policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered a review of the issues associated with implementing a repeal of this law. This review is being conducted by a highlevel, inter-Service working group appointed by the Secretary, called the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG). The CRWG was tasked with developing recommendations for how to implement a repeal of DADT, if that occurs. The CRWG developed a set of research questions to guide its efforts. This Project Introduction includes descriptions of some of the information sources the CRWG used to answer its research questions. To help it assess the impacts, if any, that a repeal of the law would have on unit cohesion, morale, military effectiveness, military readiness, family readiness, retention, and recruitment, the CRWG contracted with Westat to conduct surveys, focus groups, and other data collection efforts designed to systematically engage Service members and their spouses in the CRWG review. Westat conducted the following specific tasks for the CRWG: Task 1: Conduct a survey of the men and women of the Armed Forces and a separate survey of Service member spouses. This effort included all Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard) and all Components of the Armed Forces (Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves). Westat conducted the surveys according to industry standards and provided representative estimates of overall populations and important subgroups (or domains) of interest. Task 2: Support and conduct Information Exchange Forums (IEFs), Leadership Discussion Groups, focus group discussions, and Family Readiness discussions with Service members and their spouses. Westat supported and staffed 79 IEFs, 93 focus groups, 39 Leadership discussions, and 9 Family Readiness discussions. The IEFs were large group meetings where two to three CRWG leaders discussed the general purpose of the surveys and the focus groups and fielded questions from the audience. A senior officer and/or civilian as well as a senior enlisted advisor attended the IEFs. Westat analyzed data from all of these activities to identify topics of interest and recurring themes or patterns. Task 3: Provide confidential communication mechanisms for Service members.

Page 15

At the end of the Service member survey, Service members were invited to provide feedback to DoD about the repeal in two ways: o (1) They could submit a written comment on the CRWG Online Inbox at www.defense.gov/dadt (users needed a CAC card to access this DoD website). o Service members could link directly to a website where they could have a confidential online dialogue/discussion with Westat researchers. Service members were not asked to provide any personal information during the dialogue, and if any was provided, Westat deleted the personal information before providing findings to the DoD. Westat did not share the personal information with anyone. Westat analyzed the data from these confidential communication mechanisms to identify topics of interest and recurring themes or patterns. Task 4: Produce a final report detailing the data collection methods, summarizing the data collected, and providing an analysis of findings in terms of major issues and topics identified and how those differ across subgroups. The final report from Westat’s data collection activities comprises three volumes. Volume 1 contains the analysis of the quantitative data from the Service member and spouse surveys and written comments from the Service member survey. Volume 2 describes the results of the analysis of qualitative data collected from the discussion groups, the focus groups, the IEFs, the online inbox, and the confidential online dialogue. Volume 3 contains a description of study methods, including detailed descriptions of both the survey methods and the study methods used in the qualitative analyses. The survey methods section includes a description of the sample design, survey development, survey administration, response rates, a nonresponse analysis, and a discussion of the method for creating analytic weights to allow for the estimation of population values from survey respondents. The remainder of Volume 1 includes information about, and detailed findings from, the Service member and spouse surveys. First, we provide background information on the purpose of the surveys and a brief description of the survey methods. We then report detailed findings for the Service member survey, followed by detailed findings for the spouse survey. Volume 1 is accompanied by 38 appendices—Appendices A through AL—that contain a discussion of survey methods, copies of the two survey instruments, a detailed discussion of regression analysis results, and 34 data appendices showing item response frequencies overall and by important subgroups for both Service member and spouse surveys.
Page 16

2
2.1

Service Member and Spouse Survey Background Information
Purpose of the surveys

Section 2 addresses the purpose of the surveys and includes a brief summary of survey methods.

The surveys were designed to measure perceptions of how a repeal of DADT might affect military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, family readiness, military community life, recruitment, and retention. The surveys were not designed to be a referendum on the issue of DADT repeal, nor can survey results alone answer the question of whether repeal should or should not occur. Research questions—formal statements of what analysts want to discover from the survey results— were developed for both the Service member and spouse surveys. The primary research questions for the Service member survey included the following: What is the likely impact of repeal on unit cohesion, morale, military effectiveness, and readiness? What is the past experience with Service members believed to be gay or lesbian? What demographic and service characteristics and military experiences affect Service members’ views about the impact repeal might have? Overall, what are the main issues associated with repeal for Service members? The primary research questions for the spouse survey included the following: What is the likely impact of repeal on recruitment, retention, family readiness, and military community life, including use of military programs and services? How and from whom would spouses like to receive information or support about a repeal of DADT, if that occurs? Does acquaintance with gay or lesbian individuals affect spouses’ views regarding the potential impact of a DADT repeal? 2.2

Brief description of survey methods

Section 2.2 briefly describes the target population, sample design, questionnaire development, survey administration, weighting, and survey response rates of both the Service member and spouse surveys. These and other survey methods topics, including sample design and selection, data weighting, and nonresponse analysis are described in more detail in Appendix A of this volume and in even greater detail in Volume 3 (Study Methods) of this report.

Page 17

2.2.1

Target population

Service member survey. The overall target population of the Service member survey included both Active Duty and Reserve Component members. Among Active Duty members, the target population was members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, up to and including pay grade O-6 with at least 6 months of service as of June 15, 2010 (1,416,741 Active Duty Service members). The target population of the National Guard and Reserve members was Guard and Reserve members of the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve, up to and including pay grade O-6 with at least 6 months of service as of June 15, 2010 (831,193 Reserve and National Guard members). Service members of the National Guard or Reserve who have been activated under authority of Title 10 or Title 32 were included in the population of National Guard and Reserve Service members, not the population of Active Duty Service members. Spouse survey. For the spouse survey, the target population was spouses of Active Duty and National Guard and Reserve members included in the target population of the Service member survey. The target population size for Active Duty spouses was 703,586; the size for spouses of Reserve and National Guard members was 370,250. Spouses of activated Reserve or National Guard members were included in the population of Reserve and National Guard spouses, not the population of Active Duty spouses. Both spouse populations excluded spouses in dual-military marriages—that is, spouses who themselves were Active Duty, National Guard, or Reserve members. 2.2.2 Sample design

For both surveys, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) developed the sample design and provided it to Westat for review. DMDC used data from its personnel files to create sampling frame strata. DMDC selected the samples from the frames and updated the sample files for both surveys just prior to administration. Service member sample size. The Service member sample population included 199,962 Active Duty Service members and 199,894 Reserve and National Guard members. Spouse survey sample size. For the spouse survey, the sample population included 69,986 spouses of Active Duty members and 80,200 spouses of Reserve and National Guard members.

Page 18

2.2.3

Questionnaire development

Westat worked closely with the CRWG to create survey questionnaires for both the Service member and spouse surveys. For the Service member survey, the CRWG provided an initial question bank and terms of reference for the study. (The terms of reference, which provided guiding principles for the study, are included at the end of Appendix A). For the spouse survey, CRWG identified topics of interest and guiding principles. Westat also used information collected in early focus groups and IEFs to identify issues related to a repeal of DADT that are important to Service members and spouses. The survey development process for both surveys was iterative and included reviews by the DMDC and by Service Chiefs and representatives for the five Services. Westat conducted two rounds of cognitive interviews with Service members recruited by the CRWG to pretest drafts of the Service member survey. Because of time constraints, Westat was unable to conduct cognitive interviews to pretest the spouse survey. Service member survey. Westat programmed the Service member survey for administration via a secure web site. (Appendix B includes screens shots of the Service member survey.) Spouse survey. For the spouse survey, Westat developed a scannable paper survey for delivery by postal mail. (Appendix C includes a copy of the spouse survey.) 2.2.4 Survey administration

Service member survey. Survey administration for the Service member survey began on July 7, 2010, and continued through August 15, 2010. Five reminder notices were sent to Service member nonrespondents, with two of the notices sent by both email and postal mail and the other three by email only. In addition, the individual Services independently sent communications encouraging participation in the survey to their Service members. Spouse survey. The Service member spouse survey was administered later, beginning on August 13, 2010, and continuing through September 27, 2010. Reminder notices were sent to spouse nonrespondents, followed by a second copy of the survey and a final reminder. 2.2.5 Weighting

The process of weighting refers to the calculation of a sampling weight for each survey respondent. Weighting is appropriate when the sample design is complex (that is, sample members do not all have the same probability of selection) and there is nonresponse to the survey. The sample designs for the Service member and spouse surveys included oversampling (to provide adequate sample
Page 19

sizes for CRWG domains of interest)—resulting in unequal probabilities of selection. In addition, there were many nonrespondents. Weights were calculated to achieve the survey objective of making inferences from the data collected from respondents to all members of the survey target populations. Without the weights, calculated aggregate estimates would be biased. Calculation of the weights for each of the two surveys was a three-step process: First, statisticians calculated base weights that took into account the oversampling that was performed during sample selection. Second, they adjusted the initial weights to take into account differences in response rates across demographic categories. Third, they adjusted the weights to take into account known information about the demographic structure of the two survey populations. In Section 3, which presents demographic characteristics and deployment history of Service member respondents, the data are unweighted. In Section 4, which presents findings on the Service member survey measures, the data are weighted. Note, however, that when counts (Ns) appear in any tables in the findings sections, they represent unweighted counts of respondents who answered the questions. Section 5 discusses the spouse survey findings. The section starts with a presentation of demographic characteristics of spouse respondents (unweighted data), followed by a presentation of survey findings (weighted data). 2.2.6 Response rates

Descriptive analyses. Analysts computed descriptive statistics, including counts, percentages, means, and standard deviations, for characteristics of respondents and the survey measures. Also, they produced cross-tabulations and calculated correlations between current assessments of unit characteristics and post-repeal perceptions of the effect of DADT repeal on the same unit characteristics. In addition, they developed response scale scores and calculated average response scores for selected items. To further analyze the survey data, the study team created new variables that grouped Service members on the basis of whether or not they reported having served with Service members they believed to be gay or lesbian. For an analysis of Service members’ assessments of their current immediate units, responses were compared for two “served with” groups: Service members who are currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian (i.e., those who answered “Yes” to survey question 34), and
Page 21

Service members who are not currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian (i.e., those who answered “No” to survey question 34). For an analysis of Service members’ perceptions regarding the impact of DADT repeal, responses were compared for three “served with” groups: Service members who are currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian (i.e., those who answered “Yes” to survey question 34); Service members who served in the past, but are not currently serving, with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian (i.e., those who answered “No” to survey question 34, but answered “Yes” to either survey question 35, 36, or 37); and Service members who have never served with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian (i.e., those who answered “No” to survey questions 34, 35, 36, and 37). Another created variable used in the analysis divided Service members into warfare and non-warfare communities. The warfare community was defined as Service members with military occupational specialties of Army Combat Arms; Navy Surface, Aviation, and Submarine; Marine Combat Arms; Air Force Operations; and Coast Guard Afloat and Aviation. Multivariate regression analysis for the Service member survey. To examine how various demographic and service characteristics, current unit assessments, past unit experiences, and Service members’ overall assessments of leadership in their current unit (independent variables) were related to perceptions about the impact of repealing DADT (dependent variables), analysts conducted multivariate regression analyses. These analyses provided information about the relationship between each independent variable included in the model and the dependent variable (i.e., the outcome of interest), controlling for the potential influence of every other variable in the model. Logistic regression. To predict the impact of DADT repeal on Service members’ military career intentions, Westat used a logistic regression model and reported odds ratios for the model. Logistic regression is used to predict the probability of the occurrence of an event, which by definition is constrained to be between 0 and 1. Odds ratios can range from 0.00 to infinity, with 1.00 as the point at which the odds are considered equal (that is, the variable has no effect on military career intentions). In a logistic regression, an odds ratio greater than 1.00 means the independent variable is positively associated with the dependent variable; the larger the odds ratio, the stronger the association. No regression analyses were conducted using the spouse survey data.

Page 22

HOW TO READ THIS REPORT
In this report, we generally present results for the total population only; however, we also report on differences among various demographic and service-related subgroups for whom data may or may not be included in the tables. (When the data are not included in the tables, we note where the data can be found in the data appendices.) Subgroups whose data were examined included Service, Component, gender, pay grade group, and warfare community. In addition, we report on the “served with” subgroups described in Section 2.3 for the Service member survey and “acquaintance with gay or lesbian individuals” subgroups for the spouse survey. Because the survey estimates in this report are based on a large number of survey completes, differences between groups shown in tables can be considered statistically significant. Unless noted otherwise, we used a criterion of a difference of 5 percentage points or more to select and highlight differences among subgroups for both the Service member and spouse survey. Note that all Service member percentage estimates in Section 4 of this report are weighted data. When counts (Ns) appear in the tables in Section 4, they are unweighted (i.e., actual) counts of respondents. Complete survey response data for the Service member survey are included in Appendices D–U, which contain the frequency distributions of responses to each survey question (Appendix D) and question responses by Service, Component, gender, pay grade, age group, military specialty, “served with” groups, and Service by Component. Percentages in the appendices are weighted data; counts (labeled “N”) in the appendices are actual counts of respondents. Spouse results are presented in Section 5. As with the Service member results, survey results are weighted data, although when counts (Ns) appear in the tables, they are unwieghted. Complete spouse survey response data are included in Appendices W–AL, which contain the frequency distribution of responses to each survey question (Appendix W) and question responses by Service, Component, pay grade, age group, Service by gender, and Service by Component. The data analysis starts with a look at the characteristics of survey respondents for the Service member survey in Section 3. In Section 4, the discussions of the Service member survey results have been organized around the research questions presented in the beginning of Section 2.1 and the subject areas to be addressed by the CRWG review. Section 5 contains the results of the spouse survey. It begins with the characteristics of spouse survey respondents, followed by the spouse survey results organized by major subject area. The final two sections, Section 6 and Section 7,

present qualitative findings from written comments made on the Service member survey and the spouse survey.
Page 23

3

Profile of Service Member Survey Respondents

This section includes information on survey respondent demographic characteristics and deployment status. All data presented in Section 3 are unweighted. Table 3.1 presents demographic characteristics for respondents overall and by Service. Survey respondents had the following demographic characteristics: 51.7% were Active Duty service members, 18.5% were National Guard members, and 29.7% were Reserve members; 47.6% were 25 to 38 years old; most were male (83.0%); 73.8% were non-minority (i.e., non-Hispanic White); and 62.4% were enlisted, 34.2% were officers, and 3.3% were warrant officers. Among all respondents, 8.8% were currently deployed at the time of the survey, 65.7% had been deployed at some point in the past for 30 days or more but were not currently deployed, and 25.5% had never been deployed (Table 3.2). In this instance, deployed could mean to a combat zone or, in the case of the Navy and Coast Guard, in a ship out to sea.

Table 3.2 Respondent Deployment History
N Have you ever been deployed for 30 days or more? (Q6) Yes, and I am currently deployed Yes, but I am not currently deployed No Since Sept. 11, 2001, have you been deployed to a combat zone or area where you received imminent danger pay or hostile fire pay? (Q7) Yes No
Note: Unweighted data.

Overall

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

Coast Guard

10,114 75,383 29,292

8.8% 65.7% 25.5%

12.9% 64.2% 22.9%

9.9% 68.3% 21.8%

7.0% 73.5% 19.6%

5.0% 63.4% 31.6%

12.8% 59.0% 28.2%

66,053 19,390

77.3% 22.7%

86.9% 13.1%

73.2% 26.8%

88.8% 11.2%

76.2% 23.8%

25.0% 75.0%

Page 26

4

Findings From the Service Member Survey

The survey obtained the following information on Service members: Service in the Armed Forces and characteristics of their immediate unit; Assessment of immediate unit cohesion, effectiveness, morale, and readiness; Current career intentions and factors influencing their career decisions; Experience working with Service members they believe to be gay or lesbian; Views on the impact repeal may have on immediate unit cohesion, morale, effectiveness, and readiness; Views on repeal implementation and how repeal will affect their career intentions and willingness to recommend military service to others; and Likely actions if repeal occurs regarding family readiness and housing/berthing/billeting issues. Several survey questions (regarding both current conditions and the expected impact of the repeal of DADT) asked Service members to answer the questions in relation to their “immediate unit.” In the survey instructions, immediate unit was defined as the smallest group of people (generally expected to be fewer than 20) the Service member currently works with on a daily basis. Commanders and headquarters staff were instructed to use their immediate staff as their immediate unit. Table 4.1 presents the characteristics of Service members’ immediate units for all Service members and by Service.

Note: The survey defined immediate unit as the smallest group of people that Service members currently work with on a daily basis.

When answering questions about their immediate units, 27.1% of Service members were thinking about a unit of 1 to 10 people and 33.3% were thinking about 11 to 20 people. Immediate units tended to include both men and women (80.0% of all units) and individuals from different races or ethnicities (96.4% of all units). The main exception was in the Marine Corps, where 37.3% of units consisted of a single sex, possibly because of the existence of male-only combat units. Also, Reserve units were more likely to include both men and women (89.3%) than Active Duty and National Guard units (see Q4 Appendix F). In the military, Service members often change units with new assignments or locations. However, 89.2% of Service members worked in their immediate unit for 4 or more months, suggesting a sufficient level of familiarity with their immediate unit to be able to answer survey questions about that unit.

Page 28

4.1

What is the likely impact of repeal?

The Service member survey asked a series of questions about the possible impact of a repeal of the DADT law. Survey respondents were asked “to think about the situation where DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian.” The survey asked how, if at all, repeal would affect the following subject areas: Unit cohesion, Unit effectiveness and personal performance, Personal morale, Unit and personal readiness, Retention, and Recruitment. Questions were also asked about the impact of repeal on issues related to family readiness, housing, and how easy or difficult it would be for leaders to implement any change in the law. This section of the report includes, for each subject area, baseline information about the subject area (for instance, Service members’ current assessments of unit cohesion in their immediate units) and then data on Service members’ perceptions about the effect of a DADT repeal on the same subject area.

Page 29

UNIT COHESION Questions are often asked about how a repeal of DADT might affect unit cohesion. Unit cohesion has several dimensions, and the eight survey items related to unit cohesion touched on four of them: Social cohesion, which refers to the emotional bonds of friendship, caring, and trust between unit members; Task cohesion, which refers to the shared commitment among unit members to work together and achieve the goals set for them; Horizontal cohesion, which relates to bonding between peers (Service member to Service member); and Vertical cohesion, which relates to bonding between leaders and their subordinates (Service member to leader and vice versa). Service members used a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) to answer several positively worded items about their immediate units’ current level of unit cohesion (Table 4.2). The items used in the current assessment of unit cohesion are from a validated scale used in various military surveys to measure unit cohesion. Thus, an average score was calculated for each item, each type of unit cohesion, and overall. The neutral response “Neither agree nor disagree” was assigned a midpoint score of 3.00. Any current assessment score higher than 3.00 represents a positive response (on average, “strongly agree/agree”) and any score lower than 3.00 represents a negative response (on average, “strongly disagree/disagree”). Perceptions of current unit cohesion. In general, Service members were quite positive about current unit cohesion. This was true across all Services and military Components. The average score for
Page 30

Unit Cohesion Findings at a Glance: Current Service members reported positive perceptions about current unit cohesion (average score of 3.94 on a 5-point scale). Service members’ rated unit task cohesion slightly more positively than their unit social cohesion; also, they rated unit horizontal cohesion more positively than unit vertical cohesion. Overall, having good NCOs and having good officers were the strongest predictors of Service members’ unit cohesion ratings. Post repeal A majority of Service members (53.6%) said repeal of DADT would have a neutral affect on overall unit cohesion (no effect or an effect that is equally positive and negative). 27.3% of Service members said repeal would affect overall unit cohesion negatively. Service members currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were the least likely to say that unit cohesion would be affected negatively by repeal. Marines were more likely than other Service members to perceive negative effects of repeal on unit cohesion.

Average Score Overall Social Cohesion Service members in my immediate unit trust each other. (H) (Q14c) Service members in my immediate unit really care about each other. (H) (Q14d) Service members in my immediate unit can get help from their leaders on personal problems. (V) (Q15a) Leaders in my immediate unit trust their unit members. (V) (Q15b) Leaders in my immediate unit care about their Service members. (V) (Q15d) Task Cohesion Service members in my immediate unit work together to get the job done. (H) (Q14a) Service members in my immediate unit pull together to perform as a team. (H) (Q14b) Leaders in my immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit members into combat. (V) (Q15c) Horizontal Cohesion Vertical Cohesion 3.94 3.88 3.82 3.76 4.02 3.83 3.96 4.04 4.22 4.15 3.74 3.99 3.89

StdDev --0.92 0.93 0.86 0.88 0.88 -0.72 0.77 1.00 ---

Notes: (H) indicates that the item measures horizontal cohesion. (V) indicates that the item measures vertical cohesion. The average scores were calculated by assigning the following points to each response and taking the average: Strongly disagree=1, Disagree=2, Neither agree nor disagree=3, Agree=4, and Strongly agree=5.

In Table 4.3, we summarize Service members’ assessments of current unit cohesion by the twogroup “served with” variable described in Section 2.3 above. An important caveat to this analysis is that the survey question that asked Service members if they currently serve with a male or female Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian (Q34) did not specify that this individual be in their immediate unit, whereas the assessment of current unit cohesion is specific to Service members’ immediate units. (This issue does not affect post-repeal comparisons by the “served with” groups.) Given this caveat, Table 4.3 shows that Service members currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian rated their overall unit cohesion lower (3.75 overall) than did Service members not currently serving with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian
Page 31

(4.04 overall). The same rating pattern appears in all four dimensions of unit cohesion. Whether or not the lower unit cohesion ratings are due to serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian is not known from the data. However, Service members who are not currently serving with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian were more likely to rate overall unit cohesion positively (78.6% overall) than Service members who said they currently serve with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian (68.1% overall).
Table 4.3 Current Assessment of Unit Cohesion by Having Served With a Service Member Believed to Be Gay or Lesbian
Average Score Overall Currently serving with Not currently serving with Social Cohesion Currently serving with Not currently serving with Task Cohesion Currently serving with Not currently serving with Horizontal Cohesion Currently serving with Not currently serving with Vertical Cohesion Currently serving with Not currently serving with 3.94 3.75 4.04 3.88 3.68 3.99 4.04 3.88 4.12 3.99 3.81 4.09 3.89 3.70 4.00 Strongly agree/ Agree 74.8% 68.1% 78.6% 72.1% 64.4% 76.4% 79.3% 74.2% 82.2% 76.8% 70.5% 80.4% 72.8% 65.7% 76.7% Neither agree nor disagree 17.0% 19.7% 15.5% 19.0% 22.1% 17.2% 13.7% 15.6% 12.6% 15.7% 18.3% 14.3% 18.3% 21.1% 16.7% Strongly disagree/ Disagree 8.2% 12.3% 6.0% 8.9% 13.5% 6.4% 7.0% 10.2% 5.2% 7.5% 11.3% 5.4% 8.9% 13.2% 6.5%

Note: The average scores were calculated by assigning the following points to each response and taking the average: Strongly disagree=1, Disagree=2, Neither agree nor disagree=3, Agree=4, and Strongly agree=5.

Predicting current unit cohesion. The study team developed a multiple linear regression model to examine the factors influencing Service members’ assessments of current unit cohesion. The model (described in detail in Appendix V) used Service members’ demographic characteristics, service characteristics, unit characteristics, and whether or not Service members are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian to predict how Service members rated current cohesion in their immediate units. The model accounted for 38.8% of the variance in current unit cohesion. Overall, having good NCO leaders and good officers were the strongest predictors of Service members’ ratings of current unit cohesion. Whether or not a Service member is currently serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian was also a significant predictor of current unit cohesion, but its overall effect was not as strong.

Page 32

Perceived effect of repeal on unit cohesion. Service members were also asked how, if at all, unit cohesion would be affected if DADT is repealed and they are working with a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay or lesbian. The response scale ranged from 1 (Very negatively) to 5 (Very positively) with an additional response of “No effect” added in the post-repeal questions. The response category “Neutral” in Table 4.4 includes the “No effect” responses as well as responses of “Equally as positively as negatively.” Overall, a majority of Service members (53.6%) said that a repeal of DADT would have either “no effect” (20.7%) or would affect overall unit cohesion “equally as positively as negatively” (32.9%). A smaller but still substantial group, 27.3% of Service members, reported that repeal will affect unit cohesion either “very negatively/negatively.” A smaller number, 19.1% of Service members, said that repeal will affect unit cohesion “very positively/positively.” In general, this same response pattern exists for the individual unit cohesion items and for each dimension of unit cohesion as well (See Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 Impact of DADT Repeal on Unit Cohesion
Neutral Very positively/ Positively Overall Social Cohesion How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other. (H) (Q68c) How much Service members in your immediate unit care about each other. (H) (Q68d) Service members in your immediate unit can get help from their leaders on personal problems. (V) (Q69a) Leaders in your immediate unit trust their unit members. (V) (Q69b) Leaders in your immediate unit care about their Service members. (V) (Q69d) Task Cohesion How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done. (H) (Q68a) How Service members in your immediate unit pull together to perform as a team. (H) (Q68b) Leaders in your immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit members into combat. (V) (Q69c) Horizontal Cohesion Vertical Cohesion 19.1% 19.1% 18.1% 18.0% 19.9% 19.2% 20.3% 19.1% 18.4% 19.4% 19.4% 18.5% 19.7% Equally as positively as negatively 32.9% 33.3% 31.2% 33.6% 33.5% 33.8% 34.6% 32.2% 32.1% 31.8% 32.7% 32.2% 33.6% No effect 20.7% 20.4% 17.6% 18.4% 21.9% 21.7% 22.7% 21.1% 19.9% 19.3% 24.1% 18.8% 22.6% Total neutral 53.6% 53.8% 48.8% 52.0% 55.4% 55.4% 57.3% 53.3% 52.0% 51.1% 56.7% 51.0% 56.2% Very negatively/ Negatively 27.3% 27.1% 33.1% 30.0% 24.7% 25.4% 22.4% 27.6% 29.6% 29.5% 23.8% 30.5% 24.1%

Notes: (H) indicates that the item measures horizontal cohesion. (V) indicates that the item measures vertical cohesion. The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

Page 33

The findings did not differ substantially by Component or Service with the exception of the Marine Corps, as shown in Table 4.5. Marines were more likely than members of the other Services to perceive that a repeal of DADT would affect unit cohesion “very negatively/negatively”: “Very negatively/negatively” percentages for the Marine Corps were 39.5% overall, 39.2% for social cohesion, 40.0% for task cohesion, 44.1% for horizontal cohesion, and 34.8% for vertical cohesion. The percentage of “very negative/negative” responses was highest for the social cohesion item “How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other” for all Services, but was much higher for Marines than for other Service members. For this item, 47.2% of Marines said a repeal of DADT would have a negative impact, followed by 35.5% of Army members, 28.3% of Air Force members, 25.1% of Navy members, and 24.7% of Coast Guard members.
Table 4.5 Impact of DADT Repeal on Unit Cohesion (Very Negatively/Negatively by Service)
Very negatively/Negatively Overall Overall Social Cohesion How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other. (H) (Q68c) How much Service members in your immediate unit care about each other. (H) (Q68d) Service members in your immediate unit can get help from their leaders on personal problems. (V) (Q69a) Leaders in your immediate unit trust their unit members. (V) (Q69b) Leaders in your immediate unit care about their Service members. (V) (Q69d) Task Cohesion How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done. (H) (Q68a) How Service members in your immediate unit pull together to perform as a team. (H) (Q68b) Leaders in your immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit members into combat. (V) (Q69c) Horizontal Cohesion Vertical Cohesion 27.3% 27.1% 33.1% 30.0% 24.7% 25.4% 22.4% 27.6% 29.6% 29.5% 23.8% 30.5% 24.1% Army 29.4% 29.3% 35.5% 32.0% 26.4% 28.0% 24.5% 29.6% 31.9% 31.8% 25.0% 32.8% 26.0% Navy 20.4% 20.5% 25.1% 23.1% 19.1% 18.5% 16.8% 20.2% 21.5% 21.2% 18.0% 22.7% 18.1% Marine Corps 39.5% 39.2% 47.2% 43.8% 35.0% 36.4% 33.5% 40.0% 42.8% 42.8% 34.4% 44.1% 34.8% Air Force 22.9% 22.4% 28.3% 25.1% 20.7% 20.2% 17.6% 23.9% 25.2% 25.2% 21.3% 26.0% 19.9% Coast Guard 20.8% 20.6% 24.7% 22.3% 20.0% 18.8% 17.0% 21.2% 22.3% 21.8% 19.4% 22.8% 18.8%

Table 4.6 summarizes Service members’ opinions about how repeal of DADT will affect unit cohesion by the three-group “served with” variable, which divides Service members into those currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, those who served in the past with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, and those who report never having served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. The purpose of analyzing the data by this new grouping was to examine
Page 34

whether experience in serving with gay and lesbian Service members (and the “recentness” of that experience) mitigates Service members’ concerns regarding the impact of a repeal of DADT. Similar to the overall findings on unit cohesion, a majority in each of the “served with” groups said a repeal would affect unit cohesion either “equally positively or negatively” or would have “no effect” on unit cohesion. For the currently serving with group, the percentages saying repeal would affect unit cohesion “very positively/positively” and “very negatively/negatively” were nearly equal (about 23%). In general, the currently serving with group was less likely than the other two groups to perceive that a repeal of DADT would affect unit cohesion negatively. This group was also more likely than the other two groups to perceive that a repeal of DADT would affect unit cohesion positively. The data presented on Service members in each group who said repeal will affect unit cohesion either “very negatively/negatively” indicate that those who currently serve with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were least likely to say that unit cohesion would be affected “very negatively/negatively” by repeal (23.8%), followed by those who have served in the past with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian (29.0%) and those who never served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian (29.7%). This response pattern exists across all four dimensions of unit cohesion asked about in the survey. The largest difference between “served with” groups in negative perceptions about the impact of repeal was for horizontal cohesion. Among those currently serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian, 25.7% said that repeal would affect horizontal cohesion “very negatively/negatively,” compared with 33.9% of those who have never served with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian.

Page 35

Table 4.6 Post-repeal Assessment of Unit Cohesion by Having Served With a Service Member Believed to be Gay or Lesbian
Neutral Very positively/ Positively Overall Currently serving with Have served with in the past, but not now Have never served with Social Cohesion Currently serving with Have served with in the past, but not now Have never served with Task Cohesion Currently serving with Have served with in the past, but not now Have never served with Horizontal Cohesion Currently serving with Have served with in the past, but not now Have never served with Vertical Cohesion Currently serving with Have served with in the past, but not now Have never served with 19.1% 23.0% 15.5% 19.3% 19.1% 23.1% 15.6% 19.3% 19.1% 23.0% 15.4% 19.3% 18.5% 22.8% 14.7% 18.4% 19.7% 23.3% 16.3% 20.2% Equally as positively as negatively 32.9% 30.7% 34.3% 33.9% 33.3% 31.0% 34.7% 34.6% 32.2% 30.3% 33.6% 32.7% 32.2% 30.4% 33.5% 32.6% 33.6% 31.1% 35.1% 35.1% Total neutral 53.6% 53.1% 55.5% 50.9% 53.8% 52.9% 55.8% 51.6% 53.3% 53.5% 55.1% 49.9% 51.0% 51.6% 52.3% 47.7% 56.2% 54.7% 58.7% 54.2% Very negatively/ Negatively 27.3% 23.8% 29.0% 29.7% 27.1% 24.0% 28.7% 29.1% 27.6% 23.5% 29.5% 30.8% 30.5% 25.7% 32.9% 33.9% 24.1% 22.0% 25.0% 25.6%

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

There were also large differences between men and women in their views of how repeal would affect unit cohesion. Men were generally more than twice as likely as women to say that repeal would impact unit cohesion negatively for each survey item related to unit cohesion (Q68 and Q69 in Appendix I). For instance, 36.1% of men, compared with 16.9% of women, responded that repeal would affect “how service members in your immediate unit trust each other” “very negatively/ negatively.” In general, female Service members were substantially less likely than male Service members to perceive negative impacts following repeal for all of the major issues asked about in the survey. Socializing off-duty and unit cohesion. The survey asked Service members three questions about socializing off-duty. The first question asked Service members: “For your immediate unit to work together well, how important is it for unit members to socialize together off-duty?” The survey also asked how often their immediate unit socialized together off-duty in the last 2 months. A third question asked if DADT is repealed and their immediate unit includes a Service member who has

Page 36

said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect how often their immediate unit socializes together off-duty. Forty-six percent of Service members said that socializing together off-duty was “very important/ important” for their immediate unit to work together well (Table 4.7). Among these Service members who said socializing off-duty was “very important/important,” 36.1% reported that their immediate unit had socialized together off-duty two or three times in the last 2 months and 19.3% reported socializing together four or more times in the last 2 months. Regardless of Service members’ differing perceptions about the level of importance of socializing together off-duty, 31.4% or more of Service members said that if DADT is repealed and they are working with a Service member in their immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, the number of times spent socializing together off-duty will “probably decrease.” A substantial number of Service members, however, said that repeal “would probably have no effect” on socializing together off-duty (ranging from 41.5% among those who consider socializing together “very important/important” to 50.1% among those who consider socializing together off-duty “very unimportant/unimportant.”
Table 4.7 Impact of DADT Repeal on Unit Socializing by Perceived Importance of Socializing Off-Duty
Of those who said, for their immediate unit to work together well, socializing together off-duty was: Very important/ Important (46.1%) In the last 2 months, about how often has your immediate unit socialized together off-duty? (Q25) Not at all in the last 2 months Once Two or three times Four or more times If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how often your immediate unit socializes together off-duty? (Q72) Probably increase how much we get together Probably decrease how much we get together It would probably have no effect Don't know 2.3% 41.9% 41.5% 14.4% 1.5% 33.0% 46.8% 18.6% 2.1% 31.4% 50.1% 16.4% 21.3% 23.3% 36.1% 19.3% 33.9% 28.7% 29.2% 8.2% 52.0% 25.8% 17.7% 4.5% Neither important nor unimportant (40.5%) Very unimportant/ Unimportant (13.4%)

Marines, more than members of other Services, were more likely to say that socializing off-duty is “very important/important” (54.3%, Q20 Appendix E). Among Marines who responded “very important/important,” 57.0% said that if DADT is repealed, it would probably decrease how much their immediate unit gets together and 28.0% said it would probably have no effect (data not shown).
Page 37

UNIT EFFECTIVENESS Unit effectiveness reflects how well military
Unit Effectiveness Findings at a Glance: Current Service members currently deployed to a combat zone were most likely to rate their immediate units as effective in a field environment or out to sea (83.7%), during a crisis or negative event (78.1%), and in combat situations (69.5%). Also, Service members who have never been deployed to a combat zone rated their immediate units as effective on a daily basis (88.0%) and during a crisis or negative event (80.9%). Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian rated their units as being somewhat less effective than other Service members. However, when controlling for other variables in a regression equation, “currently serving with” was a positive and significant predictor of effectiveness in both non-combat and combat situations. Current unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of both current combat and non-combat unit effectiveness. Post repeal A majority of Service members said repeal would have a neutral effect on unit effectiveness (about 60% across the different circumstances), with one exception—when, for those who have been combat deployed, completing their mission in a field environment or out to sea. Service members deployed to a combat zone (now or in the past) said repeal would negatively affect unit effectiveness most often in a field environment or out to sea (44.3% overall and 59.4% for Marines). Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely than other Service members to say the impact of repeal on effectiveness (both non-combat and combat) would be positive.

units perform the tasks assigned to them. The survey explored the issue of whether Service members believe that working with a Service member who has said he or she is gay or lesbian will affect unit effectiveness. The survey first asked Service members to rate how well their immediate units perform currently in various circumstances (e.g., day to day, in a crisis, or in an intense combat situation). The survey also asked Service members about the impact of a repeal of DADT on the level of effectiveness of their immediate units. Perceptions of current unit effectiveness. The current assessment of unit effectiveness includes results for the following two groups: (1) Service members who are currently deployed to a combat zone (7% of Service members) and (2) Service members who have never been deployed or have never been deployed to a combat zone (42% of Service members).2 Service members used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very ineffective) to 5 (Very effective) to rate how effective their immediate unit was in completing its mission under the different circumstances listed in Table 4.8.

As shown in Table 4.8, a large majority of Service members (ranging from 69.5% to 88.0% across the different circumstances) rated their immediate units as “very effective/effective” in all circumstances. Service members currently deployed to a combat zone were least likely to say their
2

The remaining Service members (51%) served in a combat zone in the past and were asked about the effectiveness of their past unit, not their current unit, and were therefore excluded from the current unit effectiveness analysis.

Page 38

immediate units were “very effective/effective” when they were “in an intense combat situation.” Only a small number of Service members rated their current units as “very ineffective/ ineffective,” ranging from 1.9% “on a day-to-day basis” for those who are non-combat deployed to 6.0% “in an intense combat situation” for those who are currently deployed to a combat zone.
Table 4.8 Service Members' Ratings of Current Unit Effectiveness
How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... Very effective/ Effective Very ineffective/ Ineffective

N Never Deployed or Never Deployed to a Combat Zone On a day to day basis? (Q16a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q16b) Currently Deployed to a Combat Zone In a field environment or out to sea? (Q17a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q17b) In an intense combat situation? (Q17c)
*Includes those who responded "Equally as effective as ineffective."

Neutral*

48,488 48,420

88.0% 80.9%

10.1% 15.5%

1.9% 3.6%

7,898 7,899 7,824

83.7% 78.1% 69.5%

13.5% 16.9% 24.5%

2.9% 5.0% 6.0%

Table 4.9 shows the same data by whether or not the Service member is currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian (who may or may not be in the Service member’s immediate unit). Those currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were less likely to rate their immediate unit as “very effective/effective” and more likely to rate it as “very ineffective/ineffective” than those not currently serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian across all circumstances.

Page 39

Table 4.9 Service Members' Ratings of Current Unit Effectiveness by Currently Serving With
How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... Currently Serving With Very effective/ Effective Very ineffective/ Ineffective Not Currently Serving With Very effective/ Effective Very ineffective/ Ineffective

N Never Deployed or Never Deployed to a Combat Zone On a day to day basis? (Q16a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q16b) Currently Deployed to a Combat Zone In a field environment or out to sea? (Q17a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q17b) In an intense combat situation? (Q17c) 3,257 3,257 3,229 14,832 14,821

Neutral*

N

Neutral*

84.2% 76.9%

13.0% 17.9%

2.8% 5.1%

33,494 33,437

90.2% 83.2%

8.5% 14.1%

1.3% 2.7%

79.8% 73.9% 64.7%

16.3% 19.2% 27.6%

3.9% 6.9% 7.8%

4,610 4,611 4,564

87.0% 81.8% 73.7%

11.0% 14.9% 21.8%

2.0% 3.4% 4.5%

*Includes those who responded "Equally as effective as ineffective."

Predicting current unit effectiveness. Also described in Appendix V are two multiple linear regression models that were used to examine the factors influencing Service members’ assessments of unit effectiveness in combat and non-combat situations. Like the current unit cohesion model, the models used Service members’ demographic characteristics, service characteristics, unit characteristics, and whether or not Service members are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian to predict how Service members rated current unit effectiveness. The models also included Service members’ ratings of current unit cohesion as an independent variable. The independent variables accounted for 44% of the variance in Service members’ ratings of non-combat unit effectiveness and 48% of the variance in combat unit effectiveness. In both equations, current unit cohesion was by far the largest predictor of current unit effectiveness. Currently serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian was a significant (and positive) predictor of both noncombat and combat effectiveness, indicating that Service members who currently serve with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian rated unit effectiveness more highly than those who are not, controlling for all other variables included in the regression equation. This finding contradicts the data in Table 4.9, which show that those currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian rated unit effectiveness lower than those not currently serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian. Perceived effect of repeal on unit effectiveness. Analysis of the expected effect of repeal was also conducted for two separate groups: (1) Service members who have never been deployed or have never been deployed to a combat zone and (2) Service members who have been deployed to a combat zone now or at some time in the past. Similar to the findings on unit cohesion, a majority of
Page 40

all Service members (ranging from 57.1% to 62.8% across all but one of the circumstances) said repeal will have “no effect” or will affect unit effectiveness “equally as positively as negatively” (Table 4.10). A smaller, but still significant group (ranging from 20.0% to 30.6% across all but one of the circumstances), said repeal would affect immediate unit performance “very negatively/ negatively.” An even smaller group (ranging from 11.4% to 17.4% across all circumstances) said that repeal would affect performance “very positively/positively.” An exception to the pattern was the response of Service members deployed to a combat zone now or in the past to the circumstance of being “in a field environment or out to sea.” Among all Service members in this group, 44.3% (and 59.4% of Marines—see Q71a in Appendix E) said performance would be “very negatively/negatively” affected in this situation. Of note, among all survey items related to the review’s major subject areas, this item had the highest percentage of Service members reporting negative perceptions about the impact of a repeal.
Table 4.10 Impact of DADT Repeal on Unit Effectiveness
If DADT is repealed, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission... Neutral Very positively/ Positively Equally as positively as negatively Very negatively/ Negatively

N Never Deployed or Never Deployed to a Combat Zone On a day to day basis? (Q70a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q70b) Combat Deployed Now or in the Past In a field environment or out to sea? (Q71a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q71b) In an intense combat situation? (Q71c) 64,609 64,581 64,441 47,484 47,432

No effect

Total neutral

17.4% 17.2%

32.6% 32.8%

29.3% 29.9%

61.9% 62.8%

20.8% 20.0%

11.4% 12.6% 12.3%

25.8% 33.3% 31.4%

18.6% 24.7% 25.6%

44.4% 58.0% 57.1%

44.3% 29.4% 30.6%

Next, we present findings on perceptions about how a repeal of DADT would affect unit effectiveness by the three “served with” groups described in Section 2.3 above. For all circumstances asked about, Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were most likely to say the impact of repeal on effectiveness would be positive and least likely to say it would be negative (Table 4.11).

Page 41

Table 4.11 Service Members' Ratings of Current Unit Effectiveness by Currently Serving With
How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... Currently Serving With Neutral Pos/ Very pos Never Deployed or Never Deployed to a Combat Zone On a day to day basis? (Q70a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q70b) Currently Deployed to a Combat Zone In a field environment or out to sea? (Q71a) When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit? (Q71b) In an intense combat situation? (Q71c)
Abbreviation notes - pos is positively, neg is negatively

Served With in the Past Neutral

Never Served With Neutral

Equally as pos as neg

No effect

Total neutral

Neg/ Very neg

Pos/ Very pos

Equally as pos as neg

No effect

Total neutral

Neg/ Very neg

Pos/ Very pos

Equally as pos as neg

No effect

Total neutral

Neg/ Very neg

20.9% 20.5%

29.1% 29.2%

31.9% 32.5%

61.0% 61.8%

18.0% 17.8%

13.9% 13.9%

34.2% 34.4%

29.8% 30.4%

64.0% 64.9%

22.1% 21.3%

17.4% 17.4%

34.8% 35.4%

25.3% 26.0%

60.1% 61.4%

22.5% 21.2%

15.1% 16.4% 16.0%

25.9% 31.5% 30.1%

21.6% 26.8% 27.8%

47.4% 58.4% 57.9%

37.5% 25.2% 26.1%

8.7% 9.9% 9.7%

25.6% 34.5% 32.3%

18.3% 25.2% 26.1%

43.9% 59.8% 58.4%

47.4% 30.4% 31.8%

10.6% 11.5% 11.5%

26.0% 33.9% 32.1%

13.9% 19.8% 20.4%

39.9% 53.6% 52.5%

49.5% 34.9% 36.0%

Page 42

.

The survey also asked Service members how their job performance and their ability to fulfill their mission during combat would be affected if DADT is repealed and they are working with a Service member who has said he or she is gay or lesbian. As Table 4.12 shows, most Service members (72.3%) said that repeal of DADT would have “no effect” on their job performance (57.9%) or would affect their job performance “equally as positively as negatively” (14.3%). In contrast, 15.4% of Service members said that repeal of DADT will affect their job performance either “very negatively/negatively.”
Table 4.12 Impact of DADT Repeal on Effectiveness
If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would... Your job performance be affected? (Q74) Very positively/Positively Equally as positively as negatively Neutral No effect Total neutral Very Negatively/Negatively Don't know/Does not apply 3.4% 14.3% 57.9% 72.3% 15.4% 8.9% That affect your own ability to fulfill your mission during combat? (Q85) 3.1% 11.8% 53.0% 64.8% 21.5% 10.6%

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

Negative perceptions about the impact of a repeal of DADT on Service members’ own job performance varied somewhat by Service. Among Navy Service members (at the low end), 11.2% said their job performance would be affected either “very negatively/negatively,” compared with 22.8% of Marine Corps Service members (at the high end; see Q74 in Appendix E). The percentages of negative responses were slightly higher for job performance during combat (Table 4.12). Among all Service members, 21.5% said their ability to fulfill their mission during combat would be affected “very negatively/negatively.” Corresponding percentages ranged from 14.8% for the Coast Guard to 30.8% for the Marine Corps (see Q85 in Appendix E). Service members were also asked to identify the top three factors that enable them to fulfill their mission during combat and how repeal of DADT would affect the importance of their chosen factors. Responses to both questions are summarized in Table 4.13. For the first question, the most commonly selected factor was “having unit members who work together as a team” (49.9% percent of all Service members cited this factor). Teamwork was followed by “trust among unit members” (48.2%) and “unit training/individual training” (39.1%). The top three factors cited were similar across Components and Services. Service members in the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard,
Page 43

however, cited “trust among unit members” most often (53.5% of Marines and 53.3% of Coast Guard members; see Q83 in Appendix E). Service members felt that these factors would be more important than they were before repeal for 35.7% of the total number of factors selected, that they would be as important as before repeal or would not be impacted by repeal for 56.4% of the total number of factors selected, and would be less important than before repeal for 7.9% of the total number of factors selected. Service members were most likely to say that repeal would not change the importance of the factors that enable them to fulfill their mission during combat, but in some instances the changes that will come with the repeal of DADT will make the factors that enable them to fulfill their mission during combat even more important.
Table 4.13 Most Frequently Cited Factors That Enable Service Members to Fulfill Their Mission During Combat and How DADT Repeal Affects Their Importance
Change in Importance After Repeal (Q84) Percent of Service Members That Cited These Factors (Q83) 49.9% 48.2% 39.1% 37.5% 31.3% 26.1% 18.0% 16.6% 9.3% 8.6% 5.5% 5.2% 4.0% Average -More Important Than Before Repeal 36.4% 40.8% 27.6% 37.7% 36.2% 23.5% 38.4% 22.7% 35.9% 46.2% 29.3% 63.1% 26.8% 35.7% Less Important Than Before Repeal 6.1% 9.0% 4.5% 6.1% 8.9% 3.6% 5.2% 3.6% 11.8% 14.6% 9.5% 15.0% 4.5% 7.9%

Most Frequently Cited Factors Having unit members who work together as a team Trust among unit members Unit training/Individual training Having NCOs/POs who lead by example Unit morale Clear task objectives Having officers who lead by example Individual unit members' technical capabilities Unit members who get along well socially Similar moral values among unit members Length of time serving together Having only heterosexual members in the unit Diversity among unit members

MORALE Morale refers to the mental or emotional condition
Morale Findings at a Glance: Current Service members were most likely to rate current unit morale and their own morale as “very high/high” (43.5% for unit morale and 56.5% for own morale). National Guard members had notably higher ratings for unit and personal morale. Unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of unit morale. Having good officers was the second strongest predictor. Post repeal Regardless of current level of morale, about 60% said the effect of repeal on their personal morale would be neutral. About one third said repeal will have a negative effect on their personal morale. Marines were more likely to say their morale would be negatively affected by repeal than other Service members. Service members “currently serving with” a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were least likely to believe that their personal morale would be affected negatively (23.3% vs. 30.0% for “served in the past with” and 30.8% for “never served with” a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian).

of a person or group as exhibited by their confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline. Service members were asked to rate current morale in their immediate units and their current personal morale. The five response options for both items ranged from Very low to Very high, with Moderate as the middle response. Perceptions of current morale. Overall, Service members were most likely to rate the level of morale in their immediate units as “very high/high” (43.5%) and their personal level of morale as “very high/ high” (56.5%; Table 4.14). Morale did not vary much across the Services. Notably, though, 54.1% of National Guard members rated unit morale as “very high/high” and 66.8% rated their personal morale as “very high/high.”

Predicting current morale. As with unit effectiveness and unit cohesion, we used multiple linear regression analysis to develop a model for predicting Service members’ current unit morale. The model used demographic characteristics, service characteristics, unit characteristics, the “currently serving with” variable, and current unit cohesion as independent variables. The model accounted for 28% of the variance in current unit and personal morale. Overall, Service members’ assessments of current unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of Service members’ current unit morale. This single measure accounted for approximately 10% of the variance in current unit morale, beyond the variance accounted for by the other 11 predictor variables. (See Appendix V for a detailed description of this regression equation and the full regression results.) Perceived effect of repeal on personal morale. All Service members were also asked how their personal morale would be affected if DADT is repealed and they are working with a Service member in their immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian. Some Service members (10.5%) responded “Don’t Know” to this question. Of those who gave a positive, negative, or neutral response, a majority (ranging from 61.2% to 64.3% across the three response categories) said the changes would either have “no effect” or would affect morale “equally as positively as negatively.” This was true regardless of whether Service members rated their current personal morale as high, moderate, or low (Table 4.15). “No effect” was the most commonly selected response. Nearly one third of Service members said the changes would affect their morale “very negatively/negatively.” A
Page 46

small percentage said it would affect their morale “very positively/positively.” This pattern of responses—a majority saying there will be no effect, followed by a smaller but substantial group expecting a negative effect and small percentages expecting a positive effect—is similar to that reported for unit cohesion and effectiveness. Overall (including the “don’t knows”), 27.9% of Service members said their morale would be affected “very negatively/negatively” by a repeal of DADT. This percentage varied by Service, ranging from 20.6% of Navy Service members and 20.7% of Coast Guard members to 39.5% of Marine Corps members (see Q73 in Appendix E).
Table 4.15 Impact of DADT Repeal on Personal Morale by Current Level of Morale
Expected Post-Repeal Impact If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected? (Q73) For Service members who rated their current level of personal morale as: (Q22) Very high/High Moderate Very low/Low 5.2% 5.5% 6.3% 15.2% 15.3% 11.9% 48.4% 49.0% 49.3% 63.6% 64.3% 61.2% 31.2% 30.2% 32.5% Neutral Very positively/ Positively Equally as positively as negatively Total neutral Very negatively/ Negatively

No effect

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

The “post-repeal” findings on personal morale by experience in “serving with” Service members believed to be gay or lesbian are summarized in Table 4.16. The findings exhibit the same response pattern as noted for current assessment of personal morale—mostly perceptions of no effect, followed by negative, then positive expectations. Service members “currently serving with” a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were least likely to perceive that their personal morale will be affected “very negatively/negatively” (23.3%). Corresponding percentages for the other two groups were 30.0% for Service members who believe they have served with a gay or lesbian Service member in the past and 30.8% for Service members who believe they have never served with a gay or lesbian Service member.

Page 47

Table 4.16 Beliefs Regarding the Impact of DADT Repeal on Morale by Serving With a Gay or Lesbian Unit Member
If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected? (Q73) Very positively/Positively Equally as positively as negatively Neutral No effect Total neutral Very negatively/Negatively Don't know Currently serving with gay/lesbian Service member 8.3% 12.1% 48.2% 60.2% 23.3% 8.2% Served with gay/lesbian Service member in the past 3.0% 13.4% 42.9% 56.3% 30.0% 10.6% Never served with gay/lesbian Service member 2.8% 14.7% 37.8% 52.5% 30.8% 13.8%

Page 48

MILITARY READINESS Military readiness refers to the extent to which
Military Readiness Findings at a Glance: Current In general, Service members were quite positive about both unit and personal readiness; 69.7% said their units were ”very well prepared/well prepared,” and 82.5% said the same about their personal readiness. Unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of military readiness. Post repeal The results were similar to results for unit cohesion, effectiveness, and morale. A majority said the effect of repeal on unit and own readiness would be neutral, followed by a smaller but still notable percentage saying repeal will have a negative effect on both and a small percentage saying the effect will be positive on both. Exception to general findings—47.0% of Marine Corp members said repeal would have a negative effect on immediate unit ability to train well together. Service members currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were least likely to say that military readiness would be affected negatively by repeal.

individuals and units possess the required resources and are trained to undertake their wartime missions. The survey asked Service members to assess current personal and immediate unit readiness and to say how they expect repeal of DADT to affect both. Perceptions of current unit readiness. Among all Service members, a large majority reported that their immediate units have enough trained (70.5%), experienced (68.1%), and motivated (68.8%) personnel to perform mission-essential tasks (Table 4.17). Service members were less sure of whether their units have enough deployable personnel, with 58.0% saying “Yes,” but 20.3% saying “Don’t know.” Service members also rated unit readiness and their personal readiness (Table 4.18). For both items, the five response options ranged from “Very well prepared” to “Very poorly prepared.” Service members had positive perceptions about both

current unit and personal readiness: 69.7% said their immediate units were “very well prepared/well prepared” to perform their missions, and 82.5% said the same about their personal readiness.

Table 4.18 Current Level of Preparedness
How well prepared is your immediate unit to perform its mission? (Q23) Very well prepared/well prepared Moderately well prepared Very poorly prepared/poorly prepared 69.7% 25.5% 4.8% How well prepared are you to perform your military job? (Q24) 82.5% 15.1% 2.5%

Predicting current readiness. We used multiple linear regression analysis to develop a model for predicting Service members’ ratings of their current readiness. Like the models for predicting unit effectiveness and morale, the readiness model used demographic characteristics, service characteristics, unit characteristics, the “currently serving with” variable, and current unit cohesion as independent variables. The model accounted for 25% of the variance in Service members’ ratings of readiness. As with unit effectiveness and morale, current unit cohesion was the strongest predictor of the dependent variable. (Again, see Appendix V for a detailed description of this regression equation and the full regression results.) Perceived effect of repeal on readiness. Service members were also asked to consider the situation in which DADT is repealed and they are working with a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay or lesbian. The survey asked how this would affect six items related to readiness—three focused on unit readiness and three on personal readiness. Tables 4.19 and 4.20 present data on the expected impact of repeal by current level of readiness. Once again, the responses in Table 4.19 on unit readiness have the same “post-repeal” pattern reported earlier for unit cohesion, effectiveness, and morale. A large majority of Service members, regardless of how they rated current unit readiness, perceived DADT repeal as having either “no effect” or as affecting unit readiness “equally as positively as negatively.” A smaller, but still substantial, group viewed DADT repeal as affecting unit readiness “very negatively/negatively,” and a much smaller group (less than 8% for each item in this case) viewed repeal as affecting unit readiness “very positively/positively.” Service members who rated their current unit readiness as “very poorly prepared/poorly prepared” were most likely to say that a repeal of DADT would affect unit readiness, unit motivation, and the unit’s ability to train well together “very negatively/ negatively.” There is an exception to the “post-repeal” pattern with the item “Your immediate unit’s ability to train well together” for an important subgroup of Service members. This item is one of three individual items (across all the main subject areas) where close to (or more than) 50% of all Marines said that
Page 50

the impact of repeal would be negative. Forty-seven percent of all Marine Corp members said that the repeal of DADT would affect immediate unit ability to train well together either “very negatively/negatively.” The corresponding percentage for Service members overall was 31.3% (see Q75f in Appendix E).
Table 4.19 Expected Impact of DADT Repeal on Unit Readiness by Current Level of Unit Readiness
Expected Post-Repeal Impact Neutral If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... For Service members who said their immediate unit was very well or well prepared: (Q23) Your immediate unit's readiness (Q75b) Your immediate unit's motivation (Q75d) Your immediate unit's ability to train well together (Q75f) For Service members who said their immediate unit was moderately well prepared: (Q23) Your immediate unit's readiness (Q75b) Your immediate unit's motivation (Q75d) Your immediate unit's ability to train well together (Q75f) For Service members who said their immediate unit was poorly or very poorly prepared: (Q23) Your immediate unit's readiness (Q75b) Your immediate unit's motivation (Q75d) Your immediate unit's ability to train well together (Q75f) 3,643 3,641 3,640 4.6% 4.8% 5.3% 25.0% 24.1% 22.8% 36.3% 32.6% 28.6% 61.3% 56.6% 51.4% 34.1% 38.6% 43.2% 24,835 24,805 24,814 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 29.8% 29.2% 28.1% 42.7% 36.9% 33.4% 72.5% 66.1% 61.5% 21.9% 28.3% 32.8% 82,797 82,692 82,696 7.4% 7.5% 7.7% 24.4% 24.1% 23.3% 48.1% 42.6% 39.0% 72.5% 66.7% 62.3% 20.2% 25.9% 30.0% Very positively/ Positively Equally as positively as negatively Total neutral Very negatively/ Negatively

N

No effect

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

The same data for personal readiness are presented in Table 4.20. Perceptions about the postrepeal impact again follow the familiar pattern regardless of current level of personal readiness and individual items about personal readiness, morale, and ability to train well. Neutral responses (primarily responses of “no effect”) dominated, followed by responses of “very negatively/negatively” and then “very positively/positively.” Current level of personal readiness appears to have had less of an effect on how Service members viewed the impact of repeal than was true for unit readiness, but those who rated their personal readiness as “very poorly prepared/poorly prepared” were most likely to say that repeal of DADT would affect readiness, personal motivation, and personal ability to train well “very negatively/negatively.”

Page 51

Table 4.20 Expected Impact of DADT Repeal on Personal Readiness by Current Level of Personal Readiness
Expected Post-Repeal Impact Neutral If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... For Service members who said they were very well or well prepared: (Q24) Your personal readiness (Q75a) Your motivation (Q75c) Your ability to train well (Q75e) For Service members who said they were moderately well prepared: (Q24) Your personal readiness (Q75a) Your motivation (Q75c) Your ability to train well (Q75e) For Service members who said they were poorly or very poorly prepared: (Q24) Your personal readiness (Q75a) Your motivation (Q75c) Your ability to train well (Q75e) 1,918 1,914 1,913 7.1% 7.6% 6.5% 24.2% 19.7% 22.3% 52.5% 44.8% 44.9% 76.6% 64.6% 67.3% 16.2% 27.8% 26.2% 15,429 15,409 15,401 6.8% 7.9% 7.1% 25.0% 22.4% 24.3% 56.6% 49.4% 48.9% 81.6% 71.8% 73.2% 11.6% 20.3% 19.8% 94,232 94,064 94,035 7.2% 7.9% 7.3% 20.7% 17.9% 20.1% 60.8% 51.9% 51.8% 81.6% 69.8% 71.9% 11.3% 22.3% 20.8% Very positively/ Positively Equally as positively as negatively Very negatively/ Negatively

N

No effect

Total neutral

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

Table 4.21 shows Service members’ perceptions about how DADT repeal will affect readiness for the three “served with” groups of Service members—those currently serving with a Service member whom they believe to be gay or lesbian, those who have served in the past with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian, and those who believe they have never served with a gay or lesbian Service member. For all three “served with” groups, the distributions of responses were similar to those for the overall findings. Also, the percentage of Service members who believe that the repeal of DADT will “very negatively/negatively” affect readiness was lowest for the “currently serving with” group, rose slightly for the “served with in the past” group, and was highest (although not more than 34.3% across all six items) for the “never served with” group. This pattern holds across all six readiness items.

Page 52

Table 4.21 Impact of DADT Repeal on Readiness by Having Served With a Gay or Lesbian Service Member
If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... (Q75) Your personal readiness Your immediate unit's readiness Your motivation Your immediate unit's motivation Your ability to train well Your immediate unit's ability to train well together Currently Serve With Neutral Equally as Very positively positively/ as Positively negatively 9.6% 9.4% 11.3% 9.7% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 24.0% 17.7% 23.8% 19.5% 23.0% Very negatively, Negatively 10.4% 18.3% 18.9% 23.0% 17.8% 26.6% Equally as Very positively positively/ as Positively negatively 5.1% 4.8% 5.5% 4.7% 5.1% 4.9% 21.3% 26.5% 18.3% 26.0% 20.7% 25.1% Served With in the Past Neutral Very negatively, Negatively 11.2% 22.3% 23.4% 28.9% 22.0% 33.8% Equally as Very positively positively/ as Positively negatively 6.9% 6.5% 6.9% 6.4% 6.8% 6.4% 24.0% 27.5% 20.8% 26.9% 22.8% 25.9% Never Served With Neutral Very negatively, Negatively 13.6% 24.0% 24.8% 30.1% 23.4% 34.3%

No effect 60.0% 48.4% 52.1% 43.5% 52.7% 40.4%

Total neutral 80.0% 72.3% 69.8% 67.3% 72.2% 63.4%

No effect 62.4% 46.4% 52.8% 40.3% 52.2% 36.3%

Total neutral 83.7% 72.9% 71.1% 66.3% 72.9% 61.3%

No effect 55.5% 42.1% 47.5% 36.6% 46.9% 33.3%

Total neutral 79.6% 69.6% 68.3% 63.5% 69.8% 59.3%

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

Page 53

RETENTION The extent to which Service members may choose to
Retention Findings at a Glance: Current 58.7% of Service members said they will definitely or probably stay in the military until retirement; 19.6% probably or definitely intend to leave at the end of their current obligation. Post repeal Regardless of current military career intentions, the majority of Service members (62.3%) said their military career plans will not change after repeal. 18.5% of all Service members reported they would consider leaving sooner than their current intentions if repeal occurs. This is the group of Service members who “switched” their military career intentions when considering DADT repeal. They were not considering leaving, but said repeal will cause them to “think about leaving sooner” or “leave sooner.” Among all Service members, Marine Corps members were most likely to say they will leave sooner than planned or will consider leaving sooner than planned (38.1%). Those currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to consider staying in the military longer, less likely to consider leaving sooner, and more likely to say that their career plans will not change, compared with Service members without that experience. 7.6% of Service members said all factors they selected as most important in their decisions about future military service were less important than repeal. For these Service members, repeal will be the most important factor in their career decision.

leave the military following a repeal of DADT has been of great interest to military leadership. The survey asked Service members to describe their current military career intentions and how their career intentions may be affected by the repeal of DADT. Service members were also asked to identify the factors they consider most important when deciding whether to remain in the military and how important, compared with a repeal of DADT, those factors are in Service members’ career decisions. Current military career plans. Currently, 37.9% of Service members “definitely” intend to stay in the military until retirement and 20.8% said they will “probably” stay in until retirement. Some Service members intend to stay in beyond their present obligation but not necessarily until retirement: 5.6% said they will “definitely” do so and 10.5% will “probably” do so. In contrast, 9.6% intend to “definitely” leave upon completion of their present obligation and 10.0% will “probably” do so. A small percentage (5.6%) have met requirements for retirement eligibility but continue to serve (Table 4.22).

Page 54

Table 4.22 Service Members Current Military Career Intentions
Current Military Career Plans (Q32) Definitely stay in until retirement Probably stay in until retirement Definitely stay in beyond my present obligation, but not necessarily until retirement Probably stay in beyond my present obligation, but not necessarily until retirement Definitely leave upon completion of my present obligation Probably leave upon completion of my present obligation Have met retirement eligibility but continue to serve N 54,834 21,550 4,308 8,116 6,459 7,269 12,119 % 37.9% 20.8% 5.6% 10.5% 9.6% 10.0% 5.6%

Perceived effect of a repeal of DADT on military career plans. How will a repeal of DADT affect Service members’ military career plans? Regardless of current military career intentions, a majority of Service members (62.3%) said that, if DADT is repealed, their military career plans will not change (see Q81 in Appendix D). Although 23.7% of Service members said they would think about leaving sooner or leave sooner if repeal occurs, some of those Service members (5.23%, data not shown) were already considering leaving upon completion of their present obligation. When these individuals are subtracted from the total who said they would consider leaving sooner if repeal occurs, we find that 18.5% of all Service members may consider leaving sooner than currently planned if DADT is repealed. (These Service members have “switched” their military career intentions. They were not considering leaving, but said repeal will cause them to think about leaving sooner or leave sooner than planned.) Table 4.23 shows the impact of repeal on military career plans by current career plans.
Table 4.23 Impact of DADT Repeal on Military Career Plans
Current Military Career Plans (Q32) Definitely/ Probably Stay in Beyond my Definitely/ Probably Definitely/ Probably Present Obligation Leave Upon Stay in Until but not Until Completion of my Retirement Retirement Present Obligation If DADT is repealed, how, if at all, will your military plans be affected? (Q81) I will stay longer than I had planned I will think about staying longer than I had planned I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned I will leave sooner than I had planned My military career plans would not change Don't know N=74,251 1.6% 1.3% 12.0% 9.5% 65.3% 10.3% N=11,938 2.4% 3.2% 13.3% 13.8% 54.2% 13.1% N=13,166 1.6% 2.7% 6.9% 19.9% 59.2% 9.7% Have Met Retirement Eligibility but Continue to Serve N=11,916 0.4% 0.3% 10.5% 15.5% 65.4% 7.9%

Note: Ns reflect the number of Service members who responded to both Q32 and Q81.

Page 55

The findings show only small differences in the possible impact of repeal on career intentions by Component, but among the Services, Marine Corps members were most likely to say they will think about leaving sooner (15.0%) or will leave sooner than they had planned (23.1%) and least likely to say that their plans will not change (47.5%; Table 4.24). Looking at pay grade, those most likely to say their career plans will not change included officers in pay grades O4-O6 (69.6%), enlisted Service members in pay grades E7-E9 (67.9%), and officers in pay grades O1-O3 (65.7%). Enlisted Service members in pay grades E1-E4 were most likely to say they would leave sooner (15.0%). Military career plan results are presented for the “served with” groups at the bottom of Table 4.24. Compared with those who believe they have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian, those with current or past experience serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to say their career plans will not change.

Overall, Service members said the top three factors that are most important to them when deciding whether to remain in the military are “job satisfaction,” “retirement benefits,” and the “current economic situation and civilian job availability” (Table 4.25). The top three factors cited by National Guard and Reserve members were somewhat different, with both most commonly citing “to serve and defend my country,” followed by “pay and allowances/bonuses” for the National Guard and “retirement benefits” and then “job satisfaction” for the Reserves (see Q33 in Appendix F). There were some differences by Service as well. For the Coast Guard, Air Force, and Navy, the three most commonly cited factors were the same as for the Services overall, but not necessarily in the same order. Army Service members most commonly cited “job satisfaction,” “retirement benefits,” and “to

Later in the survey, Service members were asked to state if the three factors they selected were more important to their decisions about remaining in the military than a repeal of DADT, equally as important to their decisions as a repeal of DADT, or less important to their decisions than a repeal would be. Generally, for each factor, the majority of Service members who selected the factor as important to them in deciding whether to remain in the military said that the factor was more important to their decision than a repeal of DADT would be (Table 4.26). Across all factors, 53.3% of the total number of factors cited would be more important than repeal, 22.0% of the factors would be equally as important as repeal, and 12.1% would be less important than repeal.

The data on how Service members compared the importance of their selected factors with a repeal of DADT are summarized in a different manner in Table 4.27. Forty-eight percent of Service members said that all factors they selected as important to them when deciding whether to remain in the military would be more important to them than repeal. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 7.6% of Service members said that all factors they selected would be less important than repeal. The Service members in this group were more likely to be in the Army and the Marine Corps than the survey target population as a whole. They were also somewhat more likely to be male, non-minority, and enlisted Service members than the survey target population as a whole.

Page 59

Table 4.27 Importance of Repeal Compared With Other Factors in Deciding Whether to Remain in the Military (Q82)
Percentage of Service Members Who Said 48.0% 16.0% 7.6% 28.5%

N All Factors More Important Than Repeal All Factors Equally as Important as Repeal All Factors Less Important Than Repeal Mixed 56,325 16,789 7,607 30,538

The findings in Table 4.27 varied little by Component, but across the Services the Marine Corps differed from the other Services (Table 4.28). Only 38.7% of Marine Corps members said that all factors important to their decision of whether to remain in the military were more important than repeal, and 11.1% said that all factors were less important than repeal. Differences across the “served with” groups also were not large, although 44.8% of the “never served with” group said all factors were more important than repeal, compared with 50.6% of the “served in the past” group and 47.3% of the “currently serving with” group. Finally, Table 4.28 also shows that the percentage of Service members saying that all factors important to their decision of whether to stay in the military are more important than repeal increases with pay grade. Officers were much more likely to say that all factors that are important to their decision of whether to stay in the military were more important than repeal (58.2% for O4 and above and 56.4% for O1-O3) than E1-E3 enlisted members (42.7%).

Page 60

Table 4.28 Importance of Repeal Compared With Other Factors in Deciding Whether to Remain in the Military (Q82) by Characteristic
Percentage of Service Members Who Said All factors more important 48.0% All factors equally important 16.0% All factors less important 7.6% Mixed responses 28.5%

The attitudes of a Service member’s family about the Service member’s military service may also affect retention. The survey first asked Service members whether their spouses (or significant others) and the rest of their family members feel “positively,” “negatively,” or have “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings” about the Service members’ military service. Later, Service members reported on how family attitudes might change if DADT is repealed. For all groups, the percentage of Service members who said their family members currently have negative feelings about their military service was relatively small—less than 8% (Table 4.29, upper half). However, 42.3% of married Service members (and 42.6% who have a significant other) said repeal of DADT will negatively affect how their spouses (or significant others) feel about their military service (Table 4.29, bottom half). Also, 36.0% of married Service members (and 40.0% of unmarried Service members) said that repeal of DADT will negatively affect how the rest of their family feels about their military service.

Page 61

Marine Corps members were more likely than other Service members to report that repeal of DADT would negatively affect how their spouses, significant others, and other family members feel about their military service (see Q76, Q77, and Q78 in Appendix E). Forty-two percent of married Marines said their family members’ feelings about their military service would be negatively affected.
Table 4.29 Impact of DADT Repeal on Family Attitudes About Service Members' Military Service
Percent of Service members who said: Very positive/ Positive An equal mix of positive and negative feelings Very negative/ Negative

How does your ... feel about your military service? [for married service members] ... spouse (Q26) ... rest of family (Q28) [for non-married service members] ... significant other (Q27) ... family (Q29)

Not Sure

60.8% 71.7%

31.9% 23.1%

6.4% 3.2%

38.3% 26.3%

51.1% 72.1%

38.6% 22.7% Neutral

7.9% 3.2%

46.5% 25.9%

If DADT is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your ... feel about your military service be affected? [for married service members] ... spouse (Q76) ... rest of family (Q78) [for non-married service members] ... significant other (Q77) ... family (Q79)

Very positively/ Positively

Equally as positively as negatively

No effect

Total neutral

Very negatively/ Negatively

Don't know

6.7% 4.8%

10.3% 11.3%

27.9% 32.0%

38.2% 43.2%

42.3% 36.0%

12.8% 15.9%

11.5% 8.0%

10.4% 11.2%

21.0% 24.8%

31.4% 36.0%

42.6% 40.0%

14.5% 16.0%

Note: The two neutral categories may not sum to the "Total neutral" shown because of rounding.

Page 62

RECRUITMENT The recommendations that Service members make
Recruitment Findings at a Glance: Current A strong majority of Service members said they are willing to recommend military service to others (from 79.5% of Marines to 91.9% of Coast Guard members). Post repeal 57.3% of Service members currently willing to recommend military service said repeal would have a neutral effect on their willingness to recommend military service; 26.2% said it would have a negative effect. 39.2% of Marines who are currently willing to recommend military service said repeal would negatively affect their willingness to do so.

to others who are considering military service are important to military recruitment. The survey initially asked Service members if they would ever recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military. Later in the survey, a second question asked how, if at all, a repeal of DADT would affect Service members’ willingness to recommend military service to family members or close friends. Current willingness to recommend military service. Most military Service members (85.4%) said they are willing to recommend military service to others,

with 69.5% indicating they have done so in the past (Table 4.30). Willingness to recommend military service ranged from 79.5% among Marines to 91.9% among Coast Guard members. Willingness did not vary substantially by Component, although Active Duty Service members were somewhat less willing to recommend military service (82.6%) than Reserve (89.9%) or National Guard (90.6%) members were.
Table 4.30 Willingness to Recommend Military Service
Would you ever recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military? (Q30) Yes N Overall Component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Service Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard 26,603 19,173 14,513 35,546 6,808 84.9% 84.4% 79.5% 89.5% 91.9% 3,692 2,266 1,999 3,342 574 15.1% 15.6% 20.5% 10.5% 8.1% 51,439 31,477 19,727 82.6% 89.9% 90.6% 7,780 2,575 1,518 17.4% 10.1% 9.4% 102,643 % 85.4% N 11,873 No % 14.6%

Page 63

Perceived effect of repeal on military service recommendations. Findings on the potential effect of repeal of DADT on willingness to recommend military service are shown in Table 4.31 separately for those currently willing to recommend military service and for those who are not. More than half of Service members currently willing to recommend military service said that repeal would either have no effect on their willingness to recommend (46.7%) or that repeal would affect their willingness to recommend “equally as positively as negatively” (10.5%). Also among this group, 26.2% said their willingness to recommend military service would be negatively affected and 6.6% said their willingness would be positively affected. Among those who, in response to the initial question, said they would not ever recommend military service to their friends or family, a small percentage (4.5%) would be more willing to do so if DADT is repealed.
Table 4.31 Impact of DADT Repeal on Willingness to Recommend Military Service
Expected Post-Repeal Impact If DADT is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military? (Q80) Positively Equally as positively as negatively Neutral No effect Total neutral Negatively Don't know If yes, currently (Q30) N 6,158 10,265 46,977 57,242 26,573 9,531 % 6.6% 10.5% 46.7% 57.3% 26.2% 9.9% If no, currently (Q30) N 462 645 5,280 5,925 3,886 1,125 % 4.5% 6.1% 45.6% 51.7% 33.7% 10.2%

Across the Services, the percentage reporting that repeal of DADT would negatively affect their willingness to recommend military service was highest for the Marine Corps (Table 4.32). Among Marine Corps members who are currently willing to recommend military service to others, 39.2% said their willingness to recommend would be negatively affected by repeal. The percentage was lowest for the Coast Guard (19.4%).

Page 64

Table 4.32 Impact of DADT Repeal on Willingness to Recommend Military Service
If yes, currently (Q30) Neutral If DADT is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military? (Q80) Overall Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard Equally as positively as negatively 10.5% 10.5% 10.9% 11.6% 9.9% 10.5%

N 99,504 25,779 18,555 14,067 34,471 6,632

Positively 6.6% 6.8% 7.5% 3.5% 6.7% 7.7%

No effect 46.7% 45.4% 50.5% 33.7% 51.8% 51.0%

Total neutral 57.3% 55.9% 61.4% 45.3% 61.7% 61.5%

Negatively 26.2% 28.1% 20.2% 39.2% 21.8% 19.4%

Don't know 9.9% 9.2% 10.9% 11.9% 9.8% 11.4%

Page 65

FAMILY READINESS When the military talks about family readiness, they are speaking of the ability of Service members and their families to “successfully balance life, career, and mission events.” Important to achieving family readiness is the support military families receive from one another. The military encourages this support by sponsoring military social events where Service members and their families can get to know and socialize with others in similar situations. The survey addressed family readiness by asking questions about the attendance of Service members and their families at military social functions and family programs. The survey asked Service members whether they and their families attended these functions and how their attendance at these functions might change if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended the functions with a partner. The results are presented in Tables 4.33 and 4.34.

Family Readiness Findings at a Glance: Current 70.3% of Service members said they attend military social functions—by themselves (21.0%) or with family members (49.3%). 48.1% said they usually attend military family programs—by themselves (8.0%) or with family members (40.1%). Post repeal If DADT is repealed, 46.9% of Service members who attend military social functions with family members said they will continue to attend the programs if a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also attend; 32.8% said they are likely to stop doing so, and 6.1% said they will attend alone. If DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member participated in military family programs with a partner, 41.1% of Service members who participate in military family programs with family members said they will continue to do so, 37.0% are likely to stop participating, and 9.3% are likely to participate alone. Marine Corps members were more likely than members in the other Services to say they would not continue to participate in social events.

Attendance at military social functions. Overall, 70.3% of Service members said they attend military social functions either by themselves (21.0%) or with family members (49.3%). Of those who attend military social functions by themselves, 55.6% said they will continue to participate after the repeal of DADT, 24.9% reported they will stop participating, and 14.3% said they don’t know what they are most likely to do. Those who attend military social functions with families were more likely than those who attend by themselves to say they will stop participating (32.8% vs. 24.9%) if DADT is repealed and these events are attended by gay and lesbian Service members and their partners. Among Service members who currently attend social functions with family members, 46.9% said they will continue to participate if DADT is repealed, and 11.2% said they don’t know what they are most likely to do after a possible repeal of DADT.

Page 66

Table 4.33 Impact of DADT Repeal on Attendance at Military Social Functions
Military Social Functions N Do you usually attend military social functions? (Q92) % Yes, by myself 23,221 21.0% Yes, with family members 61,222 49.3% No 26,386 29.7%

Expected Post Repeal Impact If DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which would you most likely do? (Q93) Continue to participate Stop bringing family members with me Stop participating Something else Don't know If yes, by myself, current 55.6% 2.3% 24.9% 3.0% 14.3% If yes, with family members, current 46.9% 6.1% 32.8% 3.0% 11.2%

Attendance at military family programs. Nearly half of Service members usually attend military family programs either by themselves (8.0%) or with their family (40.1%), as shown in Table 4.34. National Guard and Reserve Service members are more likely than Active Duty Service members to attend military family programs (see Q94 in Appendix F). If DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member participated in military family programs with a partner, 53.1% of those who attend by themselves and 41.1% of those who attend with family members said they will continue to participate. Thirty-seven percent of those who attend with family members said they will stop participating altogether, another 9.3% will stop bringing family members with them to these programs, and 10.2% don’t know what they are most likely to do.
Table 4.34 Impact of DADT Repeal on Attendance at Military Family Programs
Military Family Programs N Do you usually attend military family programs? (Q94) % Yes, by myself 8,044 8.0% Yes, with family members 49,330 40.1% No 52,717 51.9%

Expected Post Repeal Impact If DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which would you most likely do? (Q93) Continue to participate Stop bringing family members with me Stop participating Something else Don't know If yes, by myself, current 53.1% 5.0% 25.7% 2.1% 14.2% If yes, with family members, current 41.1% 9.3% 37.0% 2.3% 10.2%

Page 67

Findings by Service. These questions appear to be less relevant to those serving in the Coast Guard: 37.6% of Coast Guard members do not attend military social functions, and 62.2% do not attend military family programs (see Q92 and Q94 in Appendix E). Marine Corps Service members were more likely than members in the other Services to say they most likely would not continue to participate in social events if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended these events with a partner. Of Marine Corps members who attend these events, 40.4% said they are most likely to stop attending military social functions and almost half (46.8%) said they are most likely to stop participating in military family programs if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attends such events with a partner (see Q93 and Q95 in Appendix E).

Page 68

HOUSING One issue surrounding the repeal of DADT involves
Housing Findings at a Glance: Sleeping quarters 38.3% of Service members reported that they have shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian. 66.6% of Service members who have already shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian (group 1) said they would likely take no action or would discuss expectations about behavior, compared with 44.6% of Service members who have not shared sleeping quarters (group 2). 17.9% of group 1 and 32.9% of group 2 said they would likely talk to a leader about options. Bath facilities 50.1% of Service members reported that they have been assigned to share bath facilities with open bay showers that are also used by Service members they believed to be gay or lesbian Differences were less notable between those who have already been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower with Service members believed to be gay or lesbian and those who have not. Among the first group, 73.2% would take no action, talk to the person, or avoid taking showers at the same time, compared with 62.4% in the second group. 14.5% of the first group and 20.1% of the second group said they would likely talk to a leader about options. On-base housing About 18% of Service members said they would probably move off base if they lived in on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member and partner also lived there. This was true whether the Service member has mostly lived on base for the last 24 months or not.

privacy issues in housing/berthing/billeting policies. The survey addressed these issues in three areas: sharing a room, berth, or field tent; assignment to bathroom facilities with an open bay shower; and on-base housing. We report on each one separately. Sharing room, berth, or field tent. Service members were asked what actions they would take if DADT is repealed and they were assigned to share a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian. Table 4.35 presents these results by whether or not the Service member reported earlier that they had already shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian. Those who have already shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian were less likely to say they would take any action regarding such an assignment than those without that experience. Overall, 38.3% of Service members reported they have shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of these individuals, two thirds would either “take no action” (40.9%) or would “discuss how we expect each other to behave or conduct ourselves while sharing a room, berth or field tent” (25.7%). That is, these two thirds would take no action or talk with the person, if there are any issues, without involving others.

Those who have not had the experience of sharing a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian were less likely to say they would address the issue in this manner, with 44.6% saying they would either “take no action” (21.4%) or “discuss how we expect each other

Page 69

to behave. . . .” (23.2%). In a wartime situation, Service members recognize the situation with housing is more constrained, and larger percentages of both groups said they would take no action or talk with the person—71.7% of those who have shared a room, berth, or field tent with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian and 52.5% of those who have not. Relatively few Service members in either group (less than 3%) would “talk to a chaplain, mentor or leader about how to handle the situation,” but 32.9% of the Service members who have not shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian (and 17.9% of those who have) would “talk to a leader to see if I have other options.” These percentages also fall for both groups when considering a wartime situation. Less than 10% of Service members in both groups said they would do “something else.”
Table 4.35 What a Service Member Might Do if Assigned to Share Housing With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member After Repeal of DADT by Experience With Shared Housing
Service member has... Shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member you believed to be homosexual? (Q86) N % % has shared 27,757 38.3% Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation % has not shared 57,416 61.7%

If DADT is repealed, which are you most likely to do if... You are assigned to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q88) If has shared... If has not shared... If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q89) If has shared... If has not shared...

Take no action

Discuss how we expect each other to behave

Talk to a leader to see if I have other options

Something else

Don't know

40.9% 21.4%

25.7% 23.2%

1.5% 2.6%

17.9% 32.9%

8.3% 8.8%

5.7% 11.0%

44.6% 25.2%

27.1% 27.3%

1.7% 2.6%

15.2% 27.9%

6.4% 7.0%

5.1% 9.9%

Marine Corps Service members differed from other Service members in their responses to this question (Table 4.36). Although the responses of Marine Corps Service members followed the same pattern as those of Service members overall, Marine Corp members were less likely to say they will deal with the issue without involving others by taking no action or discussing how they expect each other to behave (51.8% for those who have shared quarters with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian and 32.6% for those who have not). Also, they were more likely to say they would ask a leader if there are other options (28.8% of those who have shared quarters with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian and 40.5% of those who have not).
Page 70

Table 4.36 What a Service Member Might Do if Assigned to Share Housing With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member After Repeal of DADT by Experience With Shared Housing: Marine Corps
Service member has... Shared a room, berth, or field tent with a Service member you believed to be homosexual? (Q86) N % % has shared 2,558 26.8% Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation % has not shared 8,438 73.2%

If DADT is repealed, which are you most likely to do if... You are assigned to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q88) If has shared... If has not shared... If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q89) If has shared... If has not shared...

Take no action

Discuss how we expect each other to behave

Talk to a leader to see if I have other options

Something else

Don't know

24.7% 11.9%

27.1% 20.7%

2.0% 3.3%

28.8% 40.5%

11.3% 14.1%

6.1% 9.5%

30.7% 15.1%

29.3% 27.1%

2.1% 2.5%

22.4% 34.8%

8.4% 10.5%

7.1% 10.0%

Sharing bath facilities with open bay showers. About half (50.1%) all Service members reported that they have been assigned to share bath facilities with open bay showers that are also used by Service members they believed to be gay or lesbian (Table 4.37). Among this group, 73.2% said that if they are in the same situation after a repeal of DADT, they will handle the situation by taking no action (39.7%), using the shower at a different time than the Service member thought to be gay or lesbian (22.1%), or discussing how they expect each other to behave and conduct themselves (11.4%). Of those who have not been assigned to share such bath facilities with a gay or lesbian Service member, 62.4% reported one of these same three responses. These percentages increased by a small amount when Service members were asked about a wartime situation. Of those who have shared such bath facilities, 14.5% will talk to a leader to see if they have other options, compared with 20.1% of those who have not. These percentages fall, but by only 2 points for both groups, when considering a wartime situation. Across all Service members, responses were not substantially different by Service except for the Marine Corps. Marines, compared with Service members overall, were less likely to say they would “take no action” (13.8% vs. 26.7% overall) and more likely to “talk to a leader to see if I have other options” if they have to share bath facilities with an open bay shower that are also used by Service members they believe to be gay or lesbian (38.1% vs. 28.1% overall). (See Q88 in Appendix E.)

Page 71

Table 4.37 What a Service Member Might Do if Assigned to Share Bath Facilities With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member After Repeal of DADT by Experience With Shared Bath Facilities
Service member has... Been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower that is also used by Service members you believed to be homosexual? (Q87) Use the shower at a different time than the Service member thought to be gay/lesbian N % Discuss how we expect each other to behave % has shared 36,005 50.1% Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation Talk to a leader to see if I have other options % has not shared 49,235 49.9%

If DADT is repealed, which are you most likely to do if... You are assigned to bath facilities with an open bay shower with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q90) If has shared... If has not shared... If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share bathroom facilities with an open bay shower with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member? (Q91) If has shared... If has not shared...

Take no action

Something else

Don't know

39.7% 24.2%

22.1% 27.8%

11.4% 10.4%

1.0% 1.3%

14.5% 20.1%

7.1% 6.6%

4.2% 9.7%

41.6% 26.5%

21.6% 27.3%

11.9% 11.1%

1.2% 1.4%

13.0% 18.1%

6.1% 5.9%

4.6% 9.8%

DADT repeal and on-base housing. Service members were also asked what they would most likely do if DADT is repealed and they had on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member was living with a same-sex partner on base. Table 4.38 presents data on how Service members would react in such a situation for those Service members who have mostly lived in military family housing during the past 24 months. The latter group made up 10.3% of the overall population and includes 15.2% of Active Duty, 1.1% of National Guard, and 2.4% of Reserve Component members (see Q11 in Appendix F). Of those who have mostly lived in military family housing during the past 24 months, 40.1% said they would treat the gay or lesbian Service member and his or her partner like any other neighbors (38.7%) or would make a special effort to get to know them (1.4%). Twenty-two percent said they would feel uncomfortable with the situation, but the following other factors would be more important to them in determining where they live: cost of moving (9.8%); quality of on-base housing (6.7%); and access to the exchange, commissary, and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities (5.5%). Another 17.5% said they would probably move off base, and 13.5% don’t know what they would do. These findings were similar for Service members as a whole (i.e., both those who mainly live on base and those who do not). (See Appendix D, Q96.)

Page 72

Table 4.38 also shows these data by Service. Again, the Marine Corps Service members are the outliers, with almost one quarter of Marines who lived mostly on base over the past 24 months saying that in this situation they would probably move off base.
Table 4.38 The DADT Repeal and On-Base Housing by Service
Have mostly lived in military family housing during the last 24 months (Q11=4) If DADT is repealed and you had on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member was living with a same-sex partner on base, what would you most likely do? (Q96) All Services N=10,632 I would get to know them like any other neighbors. I would make a special effort to get to know them. I would be uncomfortable, but access to the exchange, commissary, and MWR facilities is more important to me than who my neighbors are when deciding where to live. I would be uncomfortable, but the quality of on-base housing is more important to me than who my neighbors are when deciding where to live. I would be uncomfortable, but the cost of moving makes it unlikely I would leave on-base housing. I would probably move off-base. Something else Don't know 38.7% 1.4% Marine Corps N=2,080 26.9% 1.2% Coast Guard N=667 41.6% 3.2%

Army N=2,383 37.2% 1.3%

Navy N=1,973 44.4% 1.5%

Air Force N=3,529 42.3% 1.2%

5.5%

5.8%

5.4%

6.4%

4.8%

6.5%

6.7% 9.8% 17.5% 6.9% 13.5%

6.8% 10.0% 19.6% 7.6% 11.7%

6.3% 8.7% 11.6% 5.5% 16.5%

9.0% 11.9% 24.6% 6.2% 13.9%

6.0% 9.1% 15.6% 7.2% 13.9%

5.7% 10.2% 12.0% 4.1% 16.7%

Page 73

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Service members were asked to assess how easy or
Policy Implementation Findings at a Glance: Service members consider it more likely to be easy than difficult for leadership to “hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation.” Most difficult challenge for leadership: “Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers” (50.1% of all Service members and 65.1% of Marines responded that this would be “very difficult/ difficult”). 2nd most difficult challenge for leadership: “Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation” (45.8% of all Service members and 61.6% of Marines responded that this would be “very difficult/ difficult”). The warfare community believes these challenges to be more difficult than the nonwarfare community. Service members who said “all” or “most” of the officers over their immediate unit are good leaders were less likely to say that implementation will be “very difficult/difficult” across all five implementation items, compared with Service members who said “some,” “few,” or “no” officers in their immediate unit are good leaders.

difficult they thought it would be for leadership as they start implementing a repeal of DADT. The assessment included the five items listed in Table 4.39. The response scale ranged from 1 (Very difficult) to 5 (Very easy), with a Don’t know response option. A small percentage of Service members, about 3%, responded “Don’t know” across the five items. Perceptions about ease/difficulty in implementing policy. Only one of the five items listed was more often thought to be “very easy/easy” (39.1%) than “very difficult/difficult” (35.1%) for leadership: “Hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation.” The item with the highest percentage of “very difficult/difficult” responses among all Service members (50.1%) was “Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers” (among the Marine Corps, the percentage was 65.1%; Q67d in Appendix E). The

second most difficult challenge for leadership, according to Service members, will be to “Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation”—45.8% of all Service members (and 61.6% of Marines) said they thought this would be “very difficult/difficult” for leadership. Warfare vs. non-warfare communities. Table 4.39 also shows Service members’ perceptions about the ease or difficulty in implementing a new policy for the warfare and non-warfare communities. The warfare community is more likely than the non-warfare community to view implementation as being “very difficult/difficult” across all five implementation items. The largest difference in “very difficult/ difficult” responses was for the item “Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers”; 54.8% of warfare community Service members said this would be difficult for leadership, compared with 47.6% of non-warfare community Service members.

Page 74

Table 4.39 Service Members' Beliefs Regarding Ease or Difficulty of Implementing DADT Repeal Policies
If DADT is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... (Q67) Overall Hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation? Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation? Provide the same opportunities to all Service members regardless of their sexual orientation? Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers? Enforce good order and discipline? Warfare Community Hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation? Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation? Provide the same opportunities to all Service members regardless of their sexual orientation? Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers? Enforce good order and discipline? Non Warfare Community Hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation? Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation? Provide the same opportunities to all Service members regardless of their sexual orientation? Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers? Enforce good order and discipline? 40.1% 31.3% 37.3% 27.1% 37.3% 22.9% 21.5% 22.8% 22.4% 24.1% 33.4% 43.9% 36.5% 47.6% 35.5% 3.6% 3.3% 3.4% 2.9% 3.1% 37.2% 28.1% 34.0% 23.1% 33.2% 21.5% 19.8% 21.8% 19.6% 22.6% 38.1% 49.5% 41.4% 54.8% 41.7% 3.2% 2.6% 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 39.1% 30.2% 36.1% 25.7% 35.8% 22.4% 20.9% 22.4% 21.4% 23.6% 35.1% 45.8% 38.2% 50.1% 37.7% 3.5% 3.0% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9% Very easy/ Easy Equally as easy as difficult Difficult/ Very difficult

Don't know

Good leadership may help in making implementation less difficult. Responses about the ease or difficulty of implementation on the same five items were analyzed by whether or not Service members reported that the officers over their immediate unit are good leaders. Service members who said “all” or “most” of the officers over their immediate unit are good leaders were less likely to say that implementation will be “very difficult/difficult” across all five items. In units with good leaders, more Service members said implementation would be easy than difficult for leadership for three of the five items. But in units where Service members said that only “some,” “a few,” or “none” of the officers over their immediate unit were good leaders, more Service members said implementation would be difficult than easy across all five items (Table 4.40).

Page 75

Table 4.40 Influence of Leadership Quality on Service Members' Views of Ease or Difficulty of Implementation
Percent Who Said All or Most Officers in Immediate Unit are Good Leaders (Q13) Very easy/ Easy 41.2% 32.5% 38.5% 27.7% 38.4% Equally as easy as difficult 22.3% 21.2% 22.5% 21.7% 23.3% Difficult/ Very difficult 33.0% 43.2% 35.8% 47.9% 35.4% Percent Who Said Some, a Few, or No Officers in Immediate Unit are Good Leaders (Q13) Very easy/ Easy 35.4% 26.5% 32.1% 22.7% 31.4% Equally as easy as difficult 22.5% 20.4% 22.3% 20.8% 23.9% Difficult/ Very difficult 38.9% 50.4% 42.5% 53.9% 42.0%

If DADT is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... (Q67) Hold Service members to the high standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation? Treat Service members in the same manner regardless of their sexual orientation? Provide the same opportunities to all Service members regardless of their sexual orientation? Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers? Enforce good order and discipline?

Don't know 3.5% 3.1% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9%

Don't know 3.3% 2.7% 3.0% 2.5% 2.7%

4.2

What is the past experience with Service members believed to be gay or lesbian?

Although the DADT policy prohibits gay and lesbian Service members from serving openly in the military, gay and lesbian individuals can—and do—serve without revealing their sexual orientation. Thirty-six percent of Service members reported that they are currently serving with someone whom they believe to be gay or lesbian (Table 4.41). Marine Corps Service members were least likely to report currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian (24.9%); Navy Service members were most likely to report this experience (46.0%; see Q34 in Appendix E). When asked if, over the course of their careers, they had ever worked in a unit with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian, 38.5% of Service members said they have worked in a unit with a gay or lesbian leader, 69.3% said they have worked in a unit with a gay or lesbian coworker, and 49.1% said they have worked in a unit with a gay or lesbian subordinate. Overall, 77% of Service members have served (either now or in the past) with a male or female Service member whom they believed to be gay or lesbian.3 Of those who reported having served with a gay or lesbian Service member at some point in their careers, 34.6% served “in combat” with a Service member whom they believed to be gay or lesbian. Among Army Service members, 44.6% of those who believe they have served with a gay or lesbian Service member did so in combat, the highest percentage across all Services (see Q62 in Appendix E).

3

The 77% represents the unduplicated percentage of Service members who reported ever working with a Service member (of any rank) believed to be gay or lesbian. Page 76

Table 4.41 Percent Having Served With Service Members Believed to Be Gay or Lesbian
N Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be gay or lesbian? (Q34) In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a Service member you believed to be gay or lesbian? Worked in a unit with a gay/lesbian leader (Q35) Worked in a unit with a gay/lesbian coworker (Q36) Worked in a unit with a gay/lesbian subordinate (Q37) Did you ever serve in combat with a Service member of any rank whom you believed to be gay or lesbian? (Q62) 114,595 114,589 114,693 87,015 38.5% 69.3% 49.1% 34.6% 61.5% 30.7% 50.9% 65.4% 114,634 % Yes 36.0% % No 64.0%

What was the impact of serving with a gay or lesbian Service member on the units involved? Survey questions asked about unit task cohesion (i.e., the ability to work together), unit morale, and unit performance when a unit had a leader, coworker, or subordinate who was believed to be gay or lesbian. Followup questions were asked only of those who believed that they were not the only person in their unit to think that the unit member was gay or lesbian. The followup questions asked how much the belief that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected the unit and whether the effect was “mostly positive,” “mostly negative,” or “about equally positive and negative.” Unit cohesion. Regardless of whether the unit member believed to be gay or lesbian was a leader, coworker, or subordinate, a large majority of Service members (from 76.1% to 76.9%) rated the ability to work together in these units as “very good/good”; from 14.8% to 15.6% of Service members rated the ability to work together as “neither good nor poor”; and about 8.3% of Service members rated the ability to work together as “very poor/poor” (Table 4.42). Ratings of the ability to work together in these units varied by Service. About 80% of Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Service members, compared with 68.4% of Marines, rated the ability of these units to work together as “very good/good” (Appendix E, Q39a).
Table 4.42 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Cohesion
Percent of Service members rating unit's ability to work together as: Very good/Good If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a... Leader (Q39a) Coworker (Q47a) Subordinate (Q55a) 76.9% 76.6% 76.1% 14.8% 15.0% 15.6% 8.3% 8.4% 8.3% Neither good nor poor Poor/Very poor

Page 77

When asked how, among all the factors affecting how well Service members worked together in these units, the belief that the Service member was gay or lesbian affected how well Service members in these units worked together, the most common response among Service members was “not at all” (47.5% for coworkers, 49.1% for subordinates, and 50.5% for leaders). A relatively small number of Service members, 8.1% to 9.2%, responded “a lot,” 16.6% to 18.3% said “some,” and 16.4% to 18.9% said “a little.” The effect on the unit’s ability to work together was reported to be “mostly positive” by 5.3% to 6.7% of Service members, “mostly negative” by 15.8% to 19.8%, and “about equally positive and negative” by about 20%. The remainder said there was no effect (Table 4.43). Results for these questions were fairly steady across Components and Services with the exception of the Marine Corps. Marine Corps members were least likely to say that the Service member believed to be gay or lesbian did not affect that unit’s ability to work together at all (33.4% to 36.6%) and were most likely to say that the effect was “mostly negative” (24.6% to 28.9%). (See Appendix E, Q40, Q41, Q48, Q49, Q56 and Q57.)
Table 4.43 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Cohesion
If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a: Leader How much did the Service members' belief that the unit member was gay/lesbian affect the unit's ability to work together?* A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge Was the effect on the unit's ability to work together...* Mostly positive? Mostly negative? About equally positive and negative? Not applicable**
**Those who responded "Not at all" or "No basis to judge" to the previous questions.

*These questions were asked of respondents only if they noted that other unit members also believed the leader, coworker, or subordinate to be gay or lesbian.

Unit morale. Ratings of unit morale for these units also differed little by whether the unit member believed to be gay or lesbian was a leader, coworker, or subordinate (Table 4.44). The percentage of Service members rating unit morale as “very good/good” in a unit where a unit member (leader, coworker, subordinate) was believed to be gay or lesbian ranged from 67.9% (for a unit with a leader believed to be gay or lesbian) to 70.3% (for a unit with a subordinate believed to be gay or lesbian).
Page 78

From 18.1% to 19.1% of Service members rated unit morale as “neither good nor poor,” and 10.6% to 14.1% rated unit morale as “very poor/poor.” The most common response to how the belief that a unit member (whether a leader, coworker or subordinate) was gay or lesbian affected the unit’s morale was “not at all” (53.5% for leaders, 53.8% for coworkers, and 53.9% for subordinates; Table 4.45). The effect on unit morale was reported to be “mostly positive” by a small percentage of Service members (2.9% to 3.6%), “about equally positive and negative” by 16.6% to 17.6% of Service members, and “mostly negative” by 18.1% to 19.7% of Service members, with the remainder saying there was no effect. Marine Corps Service members were least likely to say that the Service member believed to be gay or lesbian did not affect the unit’s morale (38.6% to 39.8%) and most likely to say that the impact was “mostly negative” (26.9% to 28.6%). (See Appendix E, Q42, Q43, Q50, Q51, Q58 and Q59.)
Table 4.44 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Morale
Percent of Service members rating unit's morale as: Very good/Good If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a... Leader (Q39b) Coworker (Q47b) Subordinate (Q55b) 67.9% 69.1% 70.3% 18.1% 18.8% 19.1% 14.1% 12.0% 10.6% Neither good nor poor Poor/Very poor

Table 4.45 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Morale
If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a: Leader How much did the Service members' belief that the unit member was gay/lesbian affect the unit's morale?* A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge Was the effect on the unit's morale...* Mostly positive? Mostly negative? About equally positive and negative? Not applicable**
**Those who responded "Not at all" or "No basis to judge" to the previous questions.

*These questions were asked of respondents only if they noted that other unit members also believed the leader, coworker, or subordinate to be gay or lesbian.

Page 79

Unit effectiveness. As with unit cohesion and morale, there were few reported differences by leader, coworker, and subordinate regarding unit performance (Tables 4.46 and 4.47). Unit performance was generally thought to be “very good/good” by a large majority of Service members (ranged from 77.4% to 77.8% across responses for leader, coworker, and subordinate). A majority of Service members (57.3% to 58.6%) reported that the presence of a leader, coworker, or subordinate who was believed to be gay or lesbian affected unit performance “not at all.” Among all Service members, 15.7% to 18.3% said the effect on unit performance was “mostly negative,” 2.2% to 2.9% said the effect was “mostly positive,” 14.6% to 15.4% said the effect was “about equally positive and negative,” and the remainder said there was no effect (Table 4.47). Marine Corps members were least likely to say that the belief that a unit member was gay or lesbian had no effect on performance (43.2% to 44.1%) and were most likely to say the effect was “mostly negative” (23.6% to 26.7%). (See Appendix E, Q44, Q45, Q52, Q53, Q60 and Q61.)
Table 4.46 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Effectiveness
Percent of Service members rating unit's performance as: Very good/Good If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a... Leader (Q39c) Coworker (Q47c) Subordinate (Q55c) 78.1% 78.1% 77.4% 14.6% 15.0% 15.7% 7.3% 6.9% 6.9% Neither good nor poor Poor/Very poor

Page 80

Table 4.47 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Effectiveness
If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a: Leader How much did the Service members' belief that the unit member was gay/lesbian affect the unit's performance?* A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge Q44 N=35,816 6.4% 13.2% 14.3% 58.6% 7.4% Coworker Q52 N=68,206 5.9% 13.8% 14.8% 57.9% 7.7% Subordinate Q60 N=50,350 6.5% 14.3% 15.6% 57.3% 6.3%

If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a: Leader Was the effect on the unit's performance...* Mostly positive? Mostly negative? About equally positive and negative? Not applicable**
**Those who responded "Not at all" or "No basis to judge" to the previous questions.

Coworker Q53 N=68,124 2.2% 17.6% 14.6% 65.6%

Subordinate Q61 N=50,287 2.6% 18.3% 15.4% 63.7%

Q45 N=35,781 2.9% 15.7% 15.3% 66.1%

*These questions were asked of respondents only if they noted that other unit members also believed the leader, coworker, or subordinate to be gay or lesbian.

Experience in combat. As we noted above, 34.6% of Service members have served “in a combat situation” with another Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian. Among Service members with that experience in combat, 80.2% said their unit performed “very well/well” in combat, 15.3% said the unit performed “neither well nor poorly,” and 4.5% said their unit performed “very poorly/poorly” (Table 4.48). Service members who said these units performed “very poorly/poorly” were much more likely than the other Service members to report that the presence of a unit member believed to be gay or lesbian affected unit performance. Among Service members who said their unit performed “very well/well,” 65.9% said the belief that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected unit performance “not at all.” In comparison, 21.8% of Service members who said the unit performed “neither well nor poorly” and 5.3% of Service members who said the unit performed “very poorly/ poorly” responded “not at all” (Table 4.49). Although only a small portion of Service members who have served in a combat situation with another Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian said their unit performed “very poorly/poorly” in combat (4.5%), more than half of this group (52.9%) said that the Service members’ belief that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected combat performance “a lot” and 85.4% said the effect was “mostly negative” (Table 4.49). On the other hand, among the 80.2% of Service members who said their unit performed “very well/well” in combat, 65.9% said that the presence of a unit member believed to be gay or lesbian had no effect at all on unit combat
Page 81

performance. Among this same 80.2%, those who thought there was an effect of the belief on combat performance were more likely to say the effect on combat performance was “about equally positive and negative” (13.3% of all Service members) than to say “mostly negative” (11.5%) or “mostly positive” (4.2%). Marine Corps members did not differ as substantially from members of other Services in their assessments of the effect on combat performance, compared with their assessments of the effect on unit cohesion, unit morale, and overall unit performance.
Table 4.48 Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member on Combat Effectiveness
How did that unit perform in combat? (Q64) Did you ever serve in a combat situation with a Service member of any rank whom you believed to be homosexual? (Q62) Yes Overall Very well/Well Neither well nor poorly Poorly/Very poorly

*These questions were asked of respondents only if they noted that other unit members also believed the Service member to be gay or lesbian. **Those who responded "Not at all" or "No basis to judge" to the previous questions.

Summary findings on experience in serving with gay or lesbian Service members. The assessments of experience of serving in a unit with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian show a similar pattern across the unit characteristics of task cohesion, morale, and performance. Service members’ ratings of these units did not vary by whether the unit member believed to be gay or lesbian was a leader, coworker, or subordinate. Large majorities rated these units highly across all three characteristics, although unit morale was rated somewhat lower than cohesion or performance.

Page 82

When asked how much Service members’ beliefs that a unit member was gay or lesbian affected the unit, about half of the Service members said “not at all” (47.5% to 50.5% for unit cohesion at the low end and 57.3% to 58.6% for unit performance at the high end). Less than 20% of Service members said the effect of serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian was “mostly negative” across all three issues of task cohesion, morale, and unit performance. For all three characteristics, Marine Corps members were more likely than other Service members to feel that Service members’ beliefs that a unit member was gay or lesbian had an effect and that the effect was “mostly negative.” Those Service members who served in combat with a unit member of any rank who was believed to be gay or lesbian also rated unit performance highly (80.2% reported the unit performed “very well/well” in combat), but in this area differences between the Marine Corps and other Services were not as large. 4.3 What characteristics affect Service members’ views about the impact repeal might have?

Predicting the impact of DADT repeal on unit cohesion, unit effectiveness, readiness, and personal morale. Westat developed five separate multiple linear regression models to examine the characteristics that influence Service member perceptions about the impact of DADT on unit cohesion, non-combat unit effectiveness, combat unit effectiveness, readiness, and personal morale. (See Appendix V for details on the model specifications and results.) The variance accounted for by each of the models ranged between 18% and 22%: 21% of the variance was accounted for in the post-repeal unit cohesion model; 18% of the variance was accounted for in the post-repeal noncombat unit effectiveness model; 22% of the variance was accounted for in the post-repeal combat unit effectiveness model; 22% of the variance was accounted for in the post-repeal personal morale model; and 20% of the variance accounted for in the post-repeal readiness model. The results were consistent in all five of the estimated models. Overall, Service members’ past experience serving in a unit with a leader, coworker, and/or subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian was the strongest predictor of their perceptions about the impact of repealing DADT on their units. For example, when Service members rated past units in which they served with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian as having poor unit cohesion, they were more likely to say that the impact of repeal on unit cohesion would be negative. Those who rated past units as having good unit cohesion were more likely to believe that the impact of repeal would be positive, although this influence was not as strong.

Page 83

The influence of gender, minority status, and age were also consistent across all five estimated models. Being female and being a minority Service member were associated with more positive perceptions about the impact of a DADT repeal, while rising age was associated with more negative perceptions. Component was not significant for the unit cohesion, combat effectiveness, and readiness regressions. For non-combat effectiveness and morale, the Reserve Component members were more likely than Active Duty Service members to have negative views on the impact of a repeal. Currently serving with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian was a significant and positive predictor of Service members’ perceptions about the impact of repeal in all five equations. Those who were currently serving with a Service member they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to be positive about the impact of a repeal than those not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. Having good NCOs/POs and having good officers over a unit were also positively associated with Service members’ opinions about the impact of repeal in all five equations. Note that the estimated coefficients in these regression equations were often relatively small in size, indicating that the average differences between subgroups, although significant, were small. Predicting Service members’ retention intentions. Repeal’s impact on retention was analyzed using a logistic regression model. Logistic regression is a variant of multiple regression analysis. It assesses the relationship between a dichotomous outcome variable of interest (e.g., Service members who reported being likely to leave the military vs. Service members who reported being unlikely to leave) and several predictor variables. Logistic regression allowed the analysis team to estimate the odds of an event occurring (e.g., the odds of leaving the military) on the basis of the values from the predictor variables. The dependent variable for this analysis was coded as 0 if the Service member said [in response to Q81] “my military career plans will not change,” “I will stay longer than I had planned,” or “I will think of staying longer than I had planned.” The dependent variable was coded as 1 if the Service member said “I will leave sooner than I had planned” or “I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned.” The probability of Y=1 (i.e., the percentage of Service members who responded to Q81 by saying “I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned” or “I will leave sooner than I had planned) was .246. The independent variables for this analysis include Service, gender, minority/non-minority status, age group, Component, the three-group “served with” variables, whether a unit has good NCO/PO leaders, whether a unit has good officers over it, current military career intentions, how important repeal of DADT will be to Service members’ decisions on whether to remain in the military, and

Page 84

military years of service. All of these variables except age group were included in this equation as dummy variables. How the dummy variables were constructed is described in detail in Appendix V. The logistic regression model had a “pseudo” R-square value of 0.3174 (i.e., the model accounted for 32% of the variance in how repeal will affect the military career plans of Service members). Almost all independent variables were significant at the p < .01 level with the exception of the following: Reserve Component, having current intentions of leaving upon completion of their present obligation, and years of service. These three variables were not significant. Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Service members had regression results with odds ratios that were less than one, indicating that they were less likely to be considering leaving post repeal than Army Service members were. The odds that a Marine Corps Service member is considering leaving postrepeal were 43% higher than the odds that an Army Service member is considering leaving postrepeal. Service members who have served in the past with a Service member they believed to be gay or lesbian and those who have never served with a Service member believed to be gay or lesbian had greater odds of considering leaving the military post repeal (29% and 36%, respectively) than those currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. 4.4 Overall, what are the main issues associated with repeal for Service members?

To identify the main issues associated with repeal for Service members, we looked across all questions that asked about the impact of DADT repeal and determined the percentages of Service members who reported negative perceptions. For some questions, a negative response was a “negatively” or “very negatively” rating of the expected impact, but for others it was more specific to the question, such as “I will leave sooner than I had planned” or “I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned” for a question about the impact on retention. The following questions (or question items) exhibited the largest negative responses from Service members and can be considered the main issues associated with repeal for Service members, according to the survey results:

How would your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission be affected by DADT . . . in a field environment or out to sea? Forty-four percent of Service members who have been deployed to a combat environment since September 11, 2001, said that effectiveness in a field environment or out to sea would be affected “negatively” or “very negatively” by repeal.

Page 85

How would the repeal of DADT affect . . . how Service members in your immediate unit trust each other? Thirty-four percent of Service members said this aspect of social cohesion would be “very negatively” or “negatively” affected by repeal. How would the repeal of DADT affect . . . your immediate unit’s ability to train well together? Thirty-one percent of Service members said this aspect of unit readiness would be “very negatively” or “negatively” affected by repeal. How would your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission be affected by DADT . . . in an intense combat situation? Thirty-one percent of Service members who have been deployed to a combat environment since September 11, 2001, said that unit effectiveness in an intense combat situation would be affected “very negatively” or “negatively” by repeal. How would the repeal of DADT affect . . . how much Service members in your immediate unit care about each other? Thirty percent of Service members said this aspect of social cohesion would be “very negatively” or “negatively” affected by repeal. The only other repeal-related survey questions that gave rise to negative responses by 30% or more of the relevant Service members were questions related to how Service members will likely react if a gay or lesbian Service member participates in military social functions and family programs with a same-sex partner. Thirty-seven percent of Service members who usually attend military family programs said they would “stop participating in military family programs altogether” if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member participated in the program with a partner. Similarly, 32.8% of those who usually attend military social functions said they would “stop attending military social functions” if a gay or lesbian Service member attended with a partner. The above represent the issue areas that are of most concern to Service members as a whole when considering a possible repeal of DADT.

Page 86

5

Findings From the Spouse Survey

The spouse survey obtained the following information from spouses of Service members: Demographic information about themselves and their families; Their military spouses’ service in the Armed Forces; Their acquaintance with gay and lesbian individuals; Views on their military spouses’ current military service, their preference for their military spouses’ career intentions, and the factors most important when making decisions related to their military spouses’ future military careers; Views on how repeal will affect their preferences for their military spouses’ career intentions and their own willingness to recommend military service to others; How they rate the readiness of their family to handle the challenges of military life, views on how repeal will affect their family readiness, and what family readiness programs they would turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness; and Likely actions if repeal occurs regarding on-base housing and attendance at military social events, family programs, and deployment-support programs. In this section, responses to survey questions are organized into five areas: a profile of spouse survey respondents (their demographics), military spouses’ acquaintance with gay and lesbian individuals, retention and referral issues, readiness and military life issues, and housing issues. Information about military spouses’ acquaintance with gay and lesbian individuals was used to examine whether this experience mitigates spouses’ concerns regarding the impact of the repeal of DADT.

Page 87

PROFILE OF SPOUSE SURVEY RESPONDENTS A total of 44,266 spouses of military Service members responded to this survey. This part of Section 5 contains a description of the characteristics of the respondents to the spouse survey. Key findings are highlighted in the bulleted list. Tables 5.1–5.3 display more details. The data in these tables are unweighted, while data in all other spouse data tables are weighted. See Section 2.2.5 for a brief discussion of weighting, and Appendix A for more details on how weighting was accomplished for both the Service member and spouse surveys. Respondents to the spouse survey had the following characteristics: A majority (54.7%) were 26 to 40 years old; 32.0% were 41 years or older. The distribution by age was similar across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Marine Corps spouse respondents were younger, on average: About one fourth (25.7%) were 25 years old or younger; 16.7% of Marine Corps spouse respondents were more than 40 years old. Most were female (93.8%), and most (77.0%) were non-minority (i.e., non-Hispanic White). Coast Guard spouse respondents were more likely to be non-minority (85.4%) than responding spouses in other Services. Spouse survey respondents represented all five Services: Army - 33.7% Navy – 17.1% Marine Corps – 15.9% Air Force – 25.8% Coast Guard – 7.5% 10.6% had previously served in the military. Nearly half (47.2%) had at least a bachelor’s degree. A majority (58.6%) had been married to their military spouse for 10 or fewer years; the average length of marriage was 10 years. 29.0% had been married to their military spouse for 11 to 20 years; a small proportion (12.4%) had been married more than 20 years. Marine Corps spouse respondents had been married for shorter periods of time—on average, 8 years; 71.4% had been married 10 years or fewer, and 5.2% had been married more than 20 years. A majority (76.3%) had children living at home. About half (49.8%) had Active Duty spouses and half did not (50.2%).
Page 88

A majority of respondents (58.7%) were married to Service members with a pay grade of E1E9; 35.4% had military spouses with a pay grade of O1-O6. Coast Guard spouses were more likely to be married to Service members with higher pay grades—a majority (52.0%) had military spouses in pay grades O1-O6. 13.0% had military spouses who were currently deployed. A majority of respondents (74.2%) had military spouses who had been deployed at least once since September 11, 2001. This percentage was higher for spouses whose military spouse was in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and lower for those with military spouses in the Air Force and Coast Guard. Coast Guard spouses reported 22.4% of the time that their military spouses deployed four or more times since September 11, 2001; some of the Coast Guard spouses may be interpreting “deployment” differently from spouses in other Services.

Page 89

Table 5.1 Spouse Demographics, Overall and by Service
Military Spouses' Service Overall N Age (Q38) Up to 20 years old 21 to 25 years old 26 to 30 years old 31 to 35 years old 36 to 40 years old 41 years old or more Gender (Q39) Female Male Race/Ethnicity (Q42 and Q43) Minority Non-minority Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) 12 years or less of school, but no high school diploma, certificate, or GED High school diploma or GED Some college credit, but no degree Associate’s degree (e.g., AA, AS) Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS) Master’s, professional, or doctorate degree (e.g., MA, MS, MD, JD, DVM, DDS, PhD)
Note: Unweighted data.

Army (33.7%) % N % N

Navy (17.1%) %

Marine Corps (15.9%) N %

Air Force (25.8%) N %

Coast Guard (7.5%) N %

629 5,265 8,078 8,031 7,905 14,048

1.4% 12.0% 18.4% 18.3% 18.0% 32.0%

163 1,475 2,681 2,675 2,669 5,147

1.1% 10.0% 18.1% 18.1% 18.0% 34.8%

127 873 1,309 1,400 1,443 2,364

1.7% 11.6% 17.4% 18.6% 19.2% 31.5%

222 1,578 1,654 1,245 1,144 1,170

3.2% 22.5% 23.6% 17.8% 16.3% 16.7%

101 1,115 1,849 2,000 1,973 4,292

0.9% 9.8% 16.3% 17.7% 17.4% 37.9%

16 224 585 711 676 1,075

0.5% 6.8% 17.8% 21.6% 20.6% 32.7%

41,367 2,741

93.8% 6.2%

13,996 875

94.1% 5.9%

7,049 485

93.6% 6.4%

6,940 95

98.6% 1.4%

10,272 1,100

90.3% 9.7%

3,110 186

94.4% 5.6%

10,021 33,632

23.0% 77.0%

3,728 11,006

25.3% 74.7%

2,063 5,400

27.6% 72.4%

1,619 5,350

23.2% 76.8%

2,137 9,098

19.0% 81.0%

474 2,778

14.6% 85.4%

4,703 39,471

10.6% 89.4%

1,712 13,173

11.5% 88.5%

849 6,703

11.2% 88.8%

512 6,531

7.3% 92.7%

1,336 10,054

11.7% 88.3%

294 3,010

8.9% 91.1%

676 4,563 11,571 6,462 13,551

1.5% 10.4% 26.3% 14.7% 30.8%

313 1,778 4,085 2,364 4,153

2.1% 12.0% 27.5% 15.9% 28.0%

120 768 2,064 1,066 2,263

1.6% 10.2% 27.4% 14.2% 30.1%

94 724 1,963 989 2,230

1.3% 10.3% 27.9% 14.1% 31.7%

125 1,074 2,738 1,603 3,712

1.1% 9.4% 24.1% 14.1% 32.6%

24 219 721 440 1,193

0.7% 6.6% 21.9% 13.4% 36.2%

7,242

16.4%

2,152

14.5%

1,246

16.6%

1,027

14.6%

2,119

18.6%

698

21.2%

Page 90

Table 5.2 Spouse Demographics - Marriage and Children, Overall and by Service
Military Spouses' Service Overall N Marital status (Q1) Married Separated Years married (Q2) 5 years or less 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years More than 25 years Years Married Average (Q2) Children living at home (Q40) Yes No Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13-17 years old 18 years old or older
Note: Unweighted data.

Army % N % N

Navy %

Marine Corps N %

Air Force N %

Coast Guard N %

43,465 740

98.3% 1.7%

14,597 301

98.0% 2.0%

7,407 154

98.0% 2.0%

6,911 128

98.2% 1.8%

11,268 135

98.8% 1.2%

3,282 22

99.3% 0.7%

15,650 10,193 7,118 5,685 3,280 2,220 44,266

35.5% 23.1% 16.1% 12.9% 7.4% 5.0% 10

4,939 3,563 2,432 1,873 1,125 930 14,916

33.2% 24.0% 16.4% 12.6% 7.6% 6.3% 11

2,702 1,759 1,239 1,048 527 277 7,573

35.8% 23.3% 16.4% 13.9% 7.0% 3.7% 10

3,464 1,566 962 684 296 69 7,054

49.2% 22.2% 13.7% 9.7% 4.2% 1.0% 8

3,513 2,522 1,902 1,584 1,079 790 11,415

30.8% 22.1% 16.7% 13.9% 9.5% 6.9% 12

1,032 783 583 496 253 154 3,308

31.3% 23.7% 17.7% 15.0% 7.7% 4.7% 11

33,655 10,441

76.3% 23.7%

11,558 3,298

77.8% 22.2%

5,732 1,804

76.1% 23.9%

5,207 1,829

74.0% 26.0%

8,649 2,727

76.0% 24.0%

2,509 783

76.2% 23.8%

18,191 15,976 10,145 5,539

54.2% 47.6% 30.2% 16.5%

5,899 5,693 3,746 2,204

51.1% 49.3% 32.5% 19.1%

3,052 2,791 1,785 891

53.4% 48.8% 31.2% 15.6%

3,495 2,331 1,171 468

67.4% 44.9% 22.6% 9.0%

4,362 3,995 2,743 1,615

50.6% 46.3% 31.8% 18.7%

1,383 1,166 700 361

55.2% 46.6% 28.0% 14.4%

Page 91

Table 5.3 Military Spouses' Service Characteristics, Overall and by Service
Military Spouses' Service Overall N Spouses' Component (Q3) Army, Active Duty Army National Guard, Army Reserve Navy, Active Duty Navy Reserve Air Force, Active Duty Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Marine Corps, Active Duty Marine Corps Reserve Coast Guard, Active Duty Coast Guard Reserve Spouses' pay grade (Q5) E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6 Spouse currently deployed? Yes No Number of times spouse deployed since September 11, 2001 (Q6) Never 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 or more times
Note: Unweighted data.

Army % N % N

Navy %

Marine Corps N %

Air Force N %

Coast Guard N %

5,458

13.6%

5,458

40.6%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

7,980 4,346 2,220 3,658

19.9% 10.8% 5.5% 9.1%

7,980 ----

59.4% ----

-4,346 2,220 --

-66.2% 33.8% --

-----

-----

---3,658

---34.4%

-----

-----

6,972 4,040 2,285 2,477 720

17.4% 10.1% 5.7% 6.2% 1.8%

------

------

------

------

-4,040 2,285 ---

-63.9% 36.1% ---

6,972 -----

65.6% -----

---2,477 720

---77.5% 22.5%

8,194 17,808 2,595 6,852 8,815

18.5% 40.2% 5.9% 15.5% 19.9%

2,690 6,076 1,996 1,862 2,292

18.0% 40.7% 13.4% 12.5% 15.4%

1,464 3,234 177 1,281 1,417

19.3% 42.7% 2.3% 16.9% 18.7%

1,616 2,865 196 1,000 1,377

22.9% 40.6% 2.8% 14.2% 19.5%

2,101 4,595 -1,919 2,798

18.4% 40.3% -16.8% 24.5%

323 1,038 226 790 931

9.8% 31.4% 6.8% 23.9% 28.1%

5,737 38,415

13.0% 87.0%

2,500 12,372

16.8% 83.2%

1,130 6,420

15.0% 85.0%

830 6,209

11.8% 88.2%

950 10,448

8.3% 91.7%

327 2,966

9.9% 90.1%

11,207 12,138 9,387 4,993 5,688

25.8% 28.0% 21.6% 11.5% 13.1%

2,896 5,147 3,973 1,661 1,073

19.6% 34.9% 26.9% 11.3% 7.3%

1,644 1,798 1,484 984 1,455

22.3% 24.4% 20.1% 13.4% 19.8%

1,153 2,049 1,876 1,080 825

16.5% 29.3% 26.9% 15.5% 11.8%

4,081 2,659 1,723 1,060 1,626

36.6% 23.8% 15.5% 9.5% 14.6%

1,433 485 331 208 709

45.3% 15.3% 10.5% 6.6% 22.4%

Page 92

ACQUAINTANCE WITH GAY OR LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS
Acquaintance With Gay or Lesbian Individuals Findings at a Glance: 71.1% of spouses said they have one (12.1%) or more than one (59.0%) family member, friend, or acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. 34.8% of spouses reported that their military spouse has worked with an individual he or she believed to be gay or lesbian on a daily basis; 51.7% of these spouses said that they do not know that individual well at all. Spouse views regarding the potential impact of a DADT repeal varied by whether spouses have family members, friends, or acquaintances whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. In general, spouses with more than one such acquaintance were less likely to indicate that a repeal of DADT would have an impact regardless of the issue being asked about.

To investigate whether acquaintance with gay or lesbian individuals mitigates the concerns spouses may have with a repeal of the DADT policy, the survey asked spouses whether they had one or more family members, friends, or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. Spouses were also asked whether their military spouse had worked with someone he or she believed to be a gay or lesbian Service member. If yes, spouses were asked how well they knew that individual and how much the individual participated in military social activities. The data in Table 5.4 show that 71.1% of spouses said they had one (12.1%) or more than one (59.0%) family member, friend, or acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. These percentages were quite similar across the Services. Spouses were more likely than Service members to say they have gay or lesbian acquaintances (71.1% vs. 58.8%, respectively; see

Q102 in Appendix D for Service member data). When asked if their military spouse had ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a gay or lesbian Service member, 34.8% said yes, 26.4% said no, and more than a third of spouses (38.8%) said they did not know. The Service with the greatest percentage of spouses saying yes was the Navy (45.9%), and the Service with the greatest percentage saying no was the Marine Corps (35.0%). For those spouses who said yes (their military spouse has worked on a daily basis with an individual believed to be gay or lesbian), the survey asked how well they themselves knew that individual and how much the gay or lesbian Service member participated in military social activities. Spouses were most likely to report not knowing the individual very well at all (51.7%), and 38.8% did not know about the individual’s participation in military social activities. Just under half of spouses (45.7%) reported that the individual participated about the same as most other Service members in the community. Relatively small percentages reported that the individual participated more (6.2%) or less (9.2%) than most other Service members.
Page 93

Table 5.4 Acquaintance With Gay/Lesbian Individuals

Overall N Do you have any family members, friends, or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom you believe to be gay or lesbian? (Q7) Yes, one Yes, more than one No Has your spouse ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual Service member? (Q8) Yes No Don't know How well did you know that individual? (Q9) Very well Well Somewhat well Not well at all Compared with other Service members in the community, how much did that Service member participate in military social activities? (Q10) More than most other Service members in the community Less than most other Service members in the community About the same as most other Service members Don't know 830 1,346 6,338 5,497 6.2% 9.2% 45.7% 38.8% 6.3% 9.5% 46.5% 37.6% 1,331 1,938 3,241 7,513 9.9% 14.8% 23.7% 51.7% 10.5% 14.9% 24.1% 50.5% 14,082 12,019 17,916 34.8% 26.4% 38.8% 32.5% 26.7% 40.8% 5,236 27,091 11,726 12.1% 59.0% 28.9% 11.9% 57.5% 30.6% % Army

Spouses' Service Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

11.5% 63.2% 25.3%

14.1% 57.1% 28.9%

12.5% 58.9% 28.6%

10.6% 66.5% 22.9%

45.9% 17.7% 36.4%

26.9% 35.0% 38.1%

33.1% 29.5% 37.4%

43.9% 23.0% 33.0%

9.5% 13.5% 22.5% 54.5%

7.9% 12.8% 24.3% 55.0%

9.7% 16.4% 24.2% 49.6%

9.2% 15.8% 21.6% 53.4%

5.7% 7.8% 44.1% 42.5%

4.8% 10.8% 45.5% 38.8%

7.2% 9.4% 45.9% 37.5%

5.4% 9.5% 47.0% 38.1%

*Questions were answered thinking about the Service member with whom their spouse worked most recently if their spouse worked with more than one.

Spouse views regarding the potential impact of a DADT repeal varied by whether spouses have family members, friends, or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom they believe to be gay or lesbian. In general, spouses with more than one such acquaintance were less likely to indicate that a repeal of DADT would have an impact on retention and referral, family readiness and military life, and housing, compared with spouses with one such acquaintance and spouses without any such acquaintances. Spouses with one such acquaintance and those without any such acquaintances tended to respond similarly to questions about the impact of a DADT repeal. Specific results by “level of acquaintance” with gay and lesbian individuals are presented below for each issue area.

Page 94

RETENTION AND REFERRALS
Retention and Referrals Findings at a Glance: Current 65.9% of spouses said they feel “very positive/positive” about their military spouse’s current military service; 30.9% had “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings.” Coast Guard and Air Force spouses had the highest percentages of positive feelings (78.2% and 74.2%, respectively). Percentages of spouses with positive feelings were lowest among Army (61.1%) and Marine Corps (63.4%) spouses. 67.0% of spouses said they prefer their military spouses to remain in the military until retirement. The three most frequently cited factors spouses said they and their military spouses consider when making decisions about a future in the military were current pay and benefits (49.3%), retirement benefits (38.9%), and medical care (29.2%). Post repeal A majority of spouses said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/ unimportant” (40.1%) or “neither important nor unimportant” (27.7%) in making decisions about their spouses’ future in the military. 73.8% of spouses said repeal would have no effect on their preference for their military spouse’s plans for his or her future in the military; 11.8% said they would want their military spouse to leave military service sooner. 67.2% of spouses said a repeal of DADT would not affect their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend.

Retention Because military career plans are often a family decision, how spouses view their military spouses’ military service is an issue for the retention of Service members. The survey asked spouses several questions related to retention, including questions about their military spouses’ current military career intentions, the factors that are important in their family decisionmaking about military service, and their own preferences for their military spouses’ future career intentions. Spouses were also asked how a repeal of DADT would affect their preference for their military spouses’ future military career plans. Current feelings and preferences about military spouses’ future service in the military. When asked how they feel about their military spouses’ service overall, a majority of spouses (65.9%) answered “very positive/positive” (Table 5.5). Almost one third (30.9%) answered “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings”; a small percentage (3.2%) reported they had “very negative/negative” feelings. The Coast Guard and Air Force had the highest percentages of spouses with “very positive/positive” feelings toward their military spouses’ military service (78.2% and 74.2%, respectively). The Army and Marine Corps had the lowest percentages of positive responses (61.1% and 63.4%, respectively). Active Duty spouses and Reserve Component spouses had similar responses to this question. Spouses were slightly more positive about their military spouse’s military service than married Service members said they were in the Service member survey. When married Service members were asked how their

Page 95

spouses felt about their military service, 60.8% responded “very positive/positive,” 31.9% said “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings,” and 6.4% said “very negative/negative” (see Table 4.29 in Section 4).
Table 5.5 How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive An equal mix of positive and negative feelings Very negative/ negative

The survey also asked spouses to describe their military spouses’ current military career intentions and their own preferences regarding their military spouses’ career intentions. A majority of spouses (71.9%) said their military spouses either definitely (51.8%) or probably (20.1%) intend to stay in the military until retirement (Table 5.6). Less than 10% of spouses said their military spouses definitely or probably intend to stay beyond their present obligation but not necessarily until retirement (9.5%) or that their military spouses definitely or probably intend to leave upon completion of their present obligation (9.6%). Spouses’ preferences were largely consistent with what they believe their military spouses’ career intentions to be (see the bottom panel of Table 5.6). A majority of spouses (67.0%) said they prefer their military spouses to remain in the military until retirement. Smaller percentages preferred that their military spouses remain until their present obligation ends but not necessarily until retirement (10.0%) and that their military spouses leave upon completion of their present obligation (9.2%). The remaining 13.8% said they do not have a strong preference. Coast Guard (62.4%) and Air Force (60.5%) spouses were more likely than other Service spouses to say that their military spouses intend to definitely stay until retirement. Also, Coast Guard and Air Force spouses were more likely to say that they prefer that their military spouses remain in the military until retirement.

Spouses’ preferences for their military spouses’ military career intentions were likely affected by how a spouse feels about his or her military spouse’s current military service. Spouses who reported feeling “very positive/positive” about their military spouses’ current military service were three times more likely to say they prefer to have their military spouses remain in the military until retirement than spouses who reported feeling “very negative/negative” about their military spouses’ current military service (77.7% vs. 25.4%, respectively Table 5.7). The majority of spouses who reported feeling “very negative/negative” about their military spouses’ current military service (54.1%) would prefer that their military spouse leave the military upon completion of his or her present obligation.

Page 98

Table 5.7 Spouses' Preferences for Their Military Spouses' Military Career Intentions by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 31,110 77.7% 8.3% 3.2% 10.7% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,324 49.0% 14.3% 17.3% 19.4% Very negative/ negative 1,143 25.4% 5.7% 54.1% 14.9% Never thought about it 274 45.1% 0.8% 7.1% 47.0%

Which of the following best describes your preference for your spouse's military career intentions? (Q14) Respondents Remain in the military until retirement Remain in the military beyond present obligation, but not necessarily until retirement Leave upon completion of his or her present obligation I do not have a strong preference

Overall 43,851 67.0% 10.0% 9.2% 13.8%

The six most important factors spouses said they and their military spouses consider when making decisions about a future in the military were current pay and benefits (49.3%), retirement benefits (38.9%), medical care (29.2%), the current economic situation and civilian job availability (26.8%), education benefits (22.1%), and job satisfaction (21.0%). Less than 20% of spouses selected any other factor as being important (Table 5.8). When Service members (both married and unmarried) were asked this same question, job satisfaction was most often selected (by 30.5% of Service members) as an important factor when deciding whether to remain in the military (see Table 4.26 in Section 4). This was followed by retirement benefits (30.4%), the current economic situation and civilian job availability (26.5%), pay and allowances (26.1%), and to serve and defend my country (25.7%). The differences between the factors selected by spouses and those by Service members likely reflect how priorities change when a Service member has a family. A higher proportion of National Guard and Reserve spouses than Active Duty spouses cited retirement benefits as one of the most important factors when making decisions about a future in the military. In contrast, Active Duty spouses were more likely than National Guard and Reserve spouses to cite medical care as an important factor in their career decisionmaking.

The analysis of most important factors also looked at how the factors selected as important to career decisionmaking differed for spouses based on how they said they feel about their military spouses’ current military career (Table 5.9) and based on their preferences for their military spouses’ career intentions (Table 5.10). The two tables tell similar stories. Spouses who reported feeling negative about their military spouses’ current military service and those who would prefer to have their military spouse leave the military after completion of his or her present obligation were more concerned than other spouses about family stability and the impact of deployments on their families. Table 5.9 shows that the largest differences in the factors selected as important to career decisionmaking between spouses who felt positive about their military spouses’ current military service and those who felt negative were in two areas. Spouses who felt negative about their military spouses’ current military service more often chose “family separations and stability” (32.2% vs. 14.2%) and “deployment-related considerations” (24.0% vs. 9.9%) as important to their decisionmaking than did spouses who reported feeling positive about their military spouses’ current military service. Spouses with positive feelings more often chose “spouse’s retirement benefits” (43.0% vs. 21.4%) and “spouse’s current pay and benefits” (50.3% vs. 39.1%).
Page 100

Table 5.9 Most Important Factors Couples Consider When Making Decisions About Future Military Service by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouses current military service? (Q12) What are the most important factors you and your spouse consider when making decisions about his or her future in the military? (Q15) Respondents Spouse’s current pay and benefits Spouse’s retirement benefits Medical care Current economic situation and civilian job availability Spouse’s job satisfaction Education benefits (for you, your spouse, and/or your children) Our children’s well-being Spouse’s years completed toward retirement Family separations and stability Spouse’s ability to serve and defend the country Our satisfaction with military life Deployment-related considerations Your job status Other The ability to live in a close knit military community Childcare options Living on-base Very positive/ positive 26,803 50.3% 43.0% 29.6% 25.2% 22.8% 22.2% 18.2% 16.3% 14.2% 12.9% 12.8% 9.9% 6.8% 1.7% 1.5% 0.7% 0.6% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 9,543 48.3% 32.2% 29.0% 30.9% 17.6% 22.3% 20.0% 14.3% 23.7% 6.3% 10.4% 19.1% 7.9% 2.9% 0.6% 1.3% 0.9% Very negative/ negative 966 39.1% 21.4% 21.4% 21.6% 19.4% 17.3% 20.0% 10.9% 32.2% 4.1% 16.0% 24.0% 9.2% 11.0% 0.1% 1.1% 1.5% Never thought about it 252 36.5% 23.6% 34.4% 24.7% 10.2% 23.4% 13.7% 10.4% 15.4% 9.3% 7.7% 4.3% 5.8% 9.9% 3.9% 2.1% 0.8%

Looking at the most important factors for career decisionmaking by a spouse’s preference for his or her military spouse’s career intentions can reveal the factors that underlie the preference (Table 5.10). Spouses who said they prefer that their military spouse “leave upon completion of his or her present obligation” were much more likely than those who preferred that their spouse “remain in the military until retirement” to select “family separations and stability” (40.7% vs. 12.3%) and “deployment-related considerations” (32.7% vs. 8.5%) as important factors to consider when deciding on future military career plans. Those spouses who prefer that their military spouses remain in the military until retirement were more likely to select “spouse’s current pay and benefits,” “spouse’s retirement benefits,” and “medical care” as important factors to consider when making decisions about their spouses’ future in the military.

What are the most important factors you and your spouse consider when making decisions about his or her future in the military? (Q15) Respondents Spouse’s current pay and benefits Spouse’s retirement benefits Medical care Current economic situation and civilian job availability Education benefits (for you, your spouse, and/or your children) Spouse’s job satisfaction Spouse’s years completed toward retirement Our children’s well-being Spouse’s ability to serve and defend the country Family separations and stability Our satisfaction with military life Deployment-related considerations Your job status Other The ability to live in a close knit military community Living on-base Childcare options

Perceived impact of a repeal of DADT on decisions about their military spouses’ future in the military. A majority of spouses said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/unimportant” (40.1%) or “neither important nor unimportant” (27.7%) in making decisions about their spouses’ future in the military (Table 5.11). About one quarter of spouses (25.4%) said DADT repeal would be “very important/important” in making decisions about their spouses’ military career plans. Spouses who feel negative about their military spouses’ current military service were more likely to report that repeal of DADT is “very unimportant/unimportant” in making decisions about their military spouses’ future in the military than those who feel positive about their military spouses’ current military service (52.1% vs. 38.7%, Table 5.12).

Page 102

Table 5.11 Importance of DADT Repeal to Spouses in Making Decisions About Military Spouse's Future in the Military
How important a factor would a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell be to you in making decisions about your spouse's future in the military? (Q16) Very important/important Neither important nor unimportant Very unimportant/unimportant Don't know N 11,262 11,783 18,203 2,790 % 25.4% 27.7% 40.1% 6.7%

Table 5.12 Importance of DADT Repeal on Preferences for Military Spouses' Plans for a Future in the Military
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 31,098 27.4% 27.6% 38.7% 6.3% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,351 22.3% 28.4% 42.1% 7.2% Very negative/ negative 1,147 18.2% 21.9% 52.1% 7.8% Never thought about it 277 10.0% 31.8% 32.3% 26.0%

How important a factor would a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell be to you in making decisions about your spouse''s future in the military? (Q16) Respondents Very important/important Neither important nor unimportant Very unimportant/unimportant Don't know

Overall 43,873 25.4% 27.7% 40.1% 6.7%

When asked whether a repeal of DADT would affect their preferences for their military spouse’s plans for his or her future in the military, 73.8% of spouses said repeal would have no effect on their preferences for their military spouses’ military career plans (Table 5.13). This compares with 62.3% of Service members who responded “My career plans will not change” when asked on the Service member survey how their military career plans would be affected if DADT is repealed; see Q81 in Appendix D. Approximately 12 percent (11.8%) of spouses said they would want their military spouse to leave sooner (compared with 23.7% of Service members who said they would leave sooner or think about leaving sooner if DADT is repealed); 2.8% said they would want him or her to stay longer, and 11.6% responded “Don’t know.” These numbers differed little by Component (Table 5.13.) They also did not differ much when spouses were grouped by their preferences for their military spouses’ career intentions: 11.2% of spouses who prefer that their military spouses remain in the military until retirement would want their spouses to leave earlier if DADT is repealed; 14.1% of spouses who prefer that their military spouses remain in the military beyond their present obligation (but not necessarily until retirement) would want their spouses to leave earlier, as would 15.5% of those who prefer that their military spouses leave the military upon completion of their present obligations.

Page 103

When considering those spouses who “switched” their preferences after considering a repeal of DADT, 8.9% of spouses would prefer that their military spouse leave earlier (data not shown).
Table 5.13 Impact of DADT Repeal on Spouses' Preferences for Their Husbands'/Wives' Future in the Military
Overall Which one of the following statements best describes your preference for your spouse's military career intentions? (Q14) Remain in the military until retirement Remain in the military beyond present obligation, but not necessarily until retirement Leave upon completion of his or her present obligation

Would a repeal of DADT affect your preference for your spouse's plans for his or her future in the military? (Q17) Overall Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse’s plans for military service in the future Don't know Active Duty Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse’s plans for military service in the future Don't know Reserve Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse’s plans for military service in the future Don't know National Guard Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse’s plans for military service in the future Don't know

N

%

I do not have a strong preference

1,031 5,507 32,439 5,068

2.8% 11.8% 73.8% 11.6%

3.1% 11.2% 74.4% 11.3%

3.6% 14.1% 70.3% 12.0%

1.3% 15.5% 74.8% 8.4%

1.9% 10.4% 73.0% 14.7%

508 2,496 14,643 2,355

3.0% 11.8% 73.4% 11.8%

3.2% 11.3% 73.7% 11.7%

4.0% 13.9% 70.2% 11.9%

1.3% 14.0% 76.6% 8.0%

2.1% 10.7% 73.0% 14.3%

343 1,888 11,158 1,664

2.6% 11.3% 75.2% 10.8%

3.0% 10.8% 76.3% 9.9%

2.3% 13.7% 72.5% 11.4%

1.5% 16.3% 74.0% 8.1%

1.8% 8.7% 73.1% 16.4%

180 1,123 6,638 1,049

2.3% 12.2% 73.9% 11.6%

2.6% 11.1% 75.4% 10.8%

2.7% 15.6% 69.1% 12.6%

0.8% 20.0% 69.4% 9.8%

1.7% 11.0% 73.0% 14.3%

When spouses have more than one acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian, they were more likely to say that a repeal of DADT will have no effect on their preferences for their military spouses’ plans for future military service. Among spouses with more than one acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian, 79.4% said that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their preferences for their spouses’ future military plans. This percentage was lower among spouses with one such acquaintance (68.8%) and spouses without any such acquaintances (64.3%). Also, 9.5% of spouses with more than one acquaintance whom they believe to be gay or lesbian said they would want their spouses to leave the military earlier, compared with 15.6% of spouses with one such acquaintance and 14.9% of spouses without any such acquaintances (Table 5.14).
Page 104

Table 5.14 The Impact of DADT Repeal on Spouse Preferences for Their Military Spouses' Future Military Career Plans by Acquaintance With Gay or Lesbian Individuals
Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom you believe to be gay or lesbian? (Q7) % Yes, one Yes, more than one No

Overall N Would a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell affect your preference for your spouse's plans for his or her future in the military? (Q17) Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse’s plans for military service in the future Don't know 1,031 5,507 32,439 5,068 2.8% 11.8% 73.8% 11.6%

1.8% 15.6% 68.8% 13.8%

2.3% 9.5% 79.4% 8.7%

4.3% 14.9% 64.3% 16.5%

Referral The survey asked spouses if they had ever recommended military service to a family member or close friend and if repeal of DADT would affect their willingness to recommend military service. Most spouses (75.4%) said they have recommended to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military (Table 5.15). Spouses who reported feeling “very positive/positive” about their military spouses’ current military service were more likely to have recommended military service to others (81.8%) than spouses who said they had “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings” about their military spouses’ service (65.1%) or had “very negative/negative” feelings about that service (46.8%).
Table 5.15 Ever Recommend Military Service by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 31,165 81.8% 18.2% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,373 65.1% 34.9% Very negative/ negative 1,152 46.8% 53.2% Never thought about it 279 53.8% 46.2%

Have you ever recommended to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military? (Q18) Respondents Yes No

Overall 43,969 75.4% 24.6%

Page 105

Overall, 67.2% of spouses said a repeal of DADT would not affect their willingness to recommend military service (Table 5.16). This was true for 65.8% of those who have recommended military service to others and 71.7% of those who have not. Less than one fifth of spouses (17.9%) said they would be less likely to recommend military service if DADT is repealed. Smaller percentages said they would be more likely to recommend military service (4.8%) or that they did not know how repeal would affect their willingness to recommend military service (10.0%). These percentages were similar among the subset of spouses who reported having recommended military service to a family member or close friend. Among such spouses, 19.9% said they would be less likely to do so if repeal occurred. A smaller percentage of spouses who had never recommended military service to a family member or close friend (11.8%) said repeal would make them less likely to do so. No differences were found by Component. In the Service member survey, 57.7% of Service members said a repeal of DADT would either have “no effect” on their willingness to recommend military service (46.5%) or would affect their willingness to recommend military service “equally as positively as negatively” (11.2%). (See Q80 in Appendix D.) The perceived effect of repeal on willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend varied by whether or not the spouse reported having acquaintances believed to be gay or lesbian. Spouses who reported having more than one acquaintance they believed to be gay or lesbian were least likely to say their willingness to recommend military service would be affected by repeal. Of this group, 72.3% said repeal would have no effect on their willingness to recommend, compared with 62.5% of those who said they had one acquaintance they believed to be gay or lesbian, and 59.2% of those who reported having no gay or lesbian acquaintances (see Q19 in Appendix AL).

Page 106

Table 5.16 Impact of DADT Repeal on Spouses' Willingness to Recommend Military Service
Have you ever recommended to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military? (Q18) % Yes ( 75.4%) No ( 24.6%)

Overall Would a repeal of DADT affect your willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend? (Q19) Overall Yes, I would be more likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Yes, I would be less likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend No, it would not affect my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Don't know Active Duty Yes, I would be more likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Yes, I would be less likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend No, it would not affect my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Don't know National Guard Yes, I would be more likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Yes, I would be less likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend No, it would not affect my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Don't know Reserve Yes, I would be more likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Yes, I would be less likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend No, it would not affect my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Don't know 650 2,964 9,995 1,451 4.8% 17.8% 68.0% 9.4% 354 1,717 5,974 945 4.2% 18.1% 67.1% 10.6% 920 3,840 13,285 1,979 5.0% 17.9% 67.1% 10.0% 1,924 8,521 29,254 4,375 4.8% 17.9% 67.2% 10.0% N

5.3% 19.9% 65.8% 8.9%

3.3% 11.8% 71.7% 13.2%

5.5% 19.7% 65.8% 9.0%

3.5% 12.4% 71.4% 12.7%

4.7% 20.4% 65.7% 9.2%

2.8% 10.8% 71.6% 14.8%

5.4% 20.3% 66.2% 8.1%

3.3% 10.6% 72.9% 13.2%

Page 107

FAMILY READINESS AND MILITARY LIFE
Family Readiness and Military Life Findings at a Glance: Current 61.4% of spouses rated their families as being “very ready/ready” to handle the challenges of military life, 26.8% indicated their families were about “an equal mix of feeling ready and unready,” and 5.7% said their families were “very unready/ unready.” 47.9% of spouses said they had attended very few or no informal military social events in the past 12 months; 60.5% said they attended very few or no deployment-support gatherings during their military spouses’ most recent deployment. 57.8% said that family support programs are “very important/ important,” 29.7% said they are “neither important nor unimportant,” and 12.5% said they are “very unimportant/unimportant.” Post repeal 77.2% said that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their family readiness; 8.2% said repeal would reduce their family readiness. If a gay or lesbian Service member and partner attend military social events post repeal, 18.1% of spouses said they will attend these events less often; 13.8% said they will attend deployment-support gatherings less often; and 15.2% said they will participate in family support programs less often. 43.0% of spouses did not think any special activities or communications would be necessary to prepare and assist spouses if DADT is repealed.

The survey asked spouses several questions about their family readiness and about military life. Spouses were asked to rate their overall l readiness to deal with the challenges of military life and how a repeal of DADT might affect their family readiness. They were also asked about their attendance at military social events, deploymentsupport gatherings, and family support programs, and whether a repeal of DADT would affect their participation in these activities. Spouses were asked whom they would turn to if they have concerns about the impact of a repeal of DADT and which programs they would turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness. Spouses were also asked how they would like the military to prepare and assist them in understanding the new policy if DADT is repealed. Current perceptions of overall family readiness. The survey asked spouses to rate their overall family readiness to handle the challenges of military life. Overall, a majority of spouses (61.4%) rated their families as “very ready/ready,” while 26.8% indicated about “an equal mix of feeling ready and unready” (Table 5.17). Smaller percentages said they were “very unready/unready” (5.7%). Reserve and National Guard spouses rated their families as less ready than Active Duty spouses did. Reserve and National Guard spouses were less likely than Active Duty spouses to say they are “very ready/ready” to handle the challenges of military life and more likely to rate their readiness as “about an equal mix of feeling ready and unready.”

Page 108

Table 5.17 Current Perceptions of Overall Family Readiness by Component
Overall How would you rate your overall family readiness to handle the challenges of military life? (Q31) Very ready/ready About an equal mix of feeling ready and unready Very unready/unready Not sure Active Duty ( 65.5%) 64.7% 25.0% 4.8% 5.6% Reserve ( 15.5%) 54.5% 30.6% 7.7% 7.1% National Guard ( 19.0%) 55.7% 30.1% 7.2% 7.0%

N 27,729 11,488 2,331 2,482

% 61.4% 26.8% 5.7% 6.1%

Table 5.18 presents spouses’ ratings of family readiness by how spouses feel about their military spouses’ current military service. Spouses who feel positive about their military spouses’ current military service were much more likely to rate their overall family readiness as “very ready/ready” (70.8%) than were spouses with “an equal mix of positive and negative feelings” (44.9%) and spouses who reported feeling negative about their military spouses’ military service (32.5%). Spouses with negative feelings were almost 10 times more likely to say they were “very unready/unready” to meet the challenges of military life than spouses with positive feelings about their military spouses’ current military service (29.5% vs. 3.1%).
Table 5.18 Spouses' Ratings of Their Family Readiness by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 31,108 70.8% 21.0% 3.1% 5.2% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,331 44.9% 39.1% 8.7% 7.3% Very negative/ negative 1,135 32.5% 30.2% 29.5% 7.7% Never thought about it 277 45.5% 19.0% 7.7% 27.8%

How would you rate your overall family readiness to handle the challenges of military life? (Q31) Respondents Very ready/ready About an equal mix of feeling ready and unready Very unready/Unready Not sure

Overall 43,851 61.4% 26.8% 5.7% 6.1%

Perceived effect of a DADT repeal on overall family readiness. A large majority of spouses (77.2%) said that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their family readiness; 8.2% said repeal would reduce their family readiness, 1.0% said it would improve their family readiness, and 13.5% said they did not know (Table 5.19). The more positively spouses rated their family readiness, the more likely they were to say that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their family readiness. Of those who said their families were “very unready/unready,” 68.0% said repeal would have no effect on their family readiness. Of the spouses who said their families were “very ready/ready” (a majority of all spouses), 80.7% said repeal would have no effect on their family readiness. The distributions of

Page 109

spouses by how a repeal of DADT would affect their family readiness were similar across Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard spouses.
Table 5.19 How Repeal Would Affect Family Readiness by Current Level of Readiness
Overall How would you rate your overall family readiness to handle the challenges of military life? (Q31) About an equal mix of ready and unready (26.8%) Very unready/ unready (5.7%)

Assuming DADT is repealed, would repeal affect your family readiness? (Q32) Overall Yes, it would improve my family readiness Yes, it would reduce my family readiness No, it would have no effect on my family readiness Don't know Active Duty Yes, it would improve my family readiness Yes, it would reduce my family readiness No, it would have no effect on my family readiness Don't know National Guard Yes, it would improve my family readiness Yes, it would reduce my family readiness No, it would have no effect on my family readiness Don't know Reserve Yes, it would improve my family readiness Yes, it would reduce my family readiness No, it would have no effect on my family readiness Don't know

N

%

Very ready/ ready (61.4%)

Not sure (6.1%)

401 3,809 34,179 5,654

1.0% 8.2% 77.2% 13.5%

1.1% 8.6% 80.7% 9.5%

0.8% 8.0% 76.6% 14.5%

1.5% 9.9% 68.0% 20.6%

0.5% 3.8% 53.7% 42.0%

170 1,753 15,557 2,529

1.0% 8.2% 77.5% 13.3%

1.0% 8.5% 80.8% 9.6%

0.8% 7.8% 76.9% 14.5%

1.5% 10.7% 64.8% 22.9%

0.5% 3.5% 54.4% 41.5%

77 807 6,783 1,319

1.0% 8.9% 75.2% 14.9%

1.3% 9.1% 79.4% 10.2%

0.8% 9.2% 74.4% 15.7%

0.9% 10.2% 69.8% 19.2%

0.7% 4.9% 50.2% 44.2%

154 1,249 11,839 1,806

1.3% 7.6% 78.2% 12.8%

1.5% 8.5% 81.8% 8.1%

0.9% 7.0% 78.6% 13.5%

2.2% 7.8% 74.1% 16.0%

0.3% 3.4% 55.4% 40.8%

Table 5.20 shows demographic characteristics of spouses who rated their family readiness as “very ready/ready” and who reported that a repeal of DADT would have no effect on their readiness (called “group 1 spouses” in the table). The table compares demographic characteristics for this group with the characteristics of all other spouses. Group 1 spouses tended to be older on average (35 years vs. 33 years), were more likely to have ever served in the military themselves (15.0% vs. 8.8%), were more educated, were less likely to have small children (those 5 years old or younger) at home, and were more likely to be Active Duty spouses and to have military spouses at higher pay grades. In particular, group 1 spouses were less likely to have military spouses in pay grades E1-E4 than all other spouses (19.1% vs. 28.8%).

Page 110

Table 5.20 Demographics of Spouses Who Rated Their Family Readiness as "Very Ready/Ready" and Who Thought DADT Repeal Would Have "No Effect" on Readiness (Group 1 Spouses)
Group 1 spouses Average age (Q38) Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) Less than Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's degree or higher Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13 to 17 years old 18 years old or older Military spouses' component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Military spouses' pay grade E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6
Note: Group 1 spouses include those who responded "Very ready/ready" to Q31 and "No Effect" to Q32.

All others 33

35

15.0% 85.0%

8.8% 91.2%

59.5% 40.5%

65.6% 34.4%

50.1% 47.4% 29.6% 14.6%

58.4% 46.6% 24.7% 12.7%

69.1% 14.0% 16.9%

62.0% 17.1% 21.0%

19.1% 55.2% 2.3% 9.4% 14.1%

28.8% 53.1% 1.8% 8.3% 8.0%

Those who said repeal will have no effect on their family readiness were also more likely to have more than one gay or lesbian acquaintance. More than 80% of spouses with more than one gay or lesbian acquaintance (81.6%) said repeal would have no effect on their family readiness, compared with 73.3% of those with one gay or lesbian acquaintance and 69.8% of those who reported having no gay or lesbian acquaintances (Table 5.21).

Page 111

Table 5.21 The Impact of DADT Repeal on Family Readiness by Acquaintance With Gay or Lesbian Individuals
Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom you believe to be gay or lesbian? (Q7) % Yes, one Yes, more than one No

Overall N Assume Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed. Would repeal affect your family readiness? (Q32) Yes, it would improve my family readiness Yes, it would reduce my family readiness No, it would have no effect on my family readiness Don't know 401 3,809 34,179 5,654 1.0% 8.2% 77.2% 13.5%

0.6% 11.1% 73.3% 15.0%

0.9% 6.7% 81.6% 10.8%

1.5% 10.2% 69.8% 18.5%

Spouse attendance at informal military social events. Attendance at military social events can foster a sense of community among military spouses and help spouses meet family readiness challenges. The survey asked spouses how many informal military social events they have attended in the past 12 months. Table 5.22 shows spouse responses to this question overall and by how they feel about their military spouses’ current military service. Nearly half of spouses (47.9%) said they had attended very few or none of these events in the past 12 months; 26.2% said they had attended all, nearly all, or many of these events; and 25.8% reported having attended some of these events. Spouses who reported feeling “very negative/negative” about their military spouses’ current military service were more likely to have attended very few or no military social events in the last 12 months (67.5%) than spouses who said they feel “very positive/positive” about their military spouses’ military service (42.9%). It may be that attendance at these events helps to make spouses feel more positive about their military spouses’ military service or that spouses with positive feelings about their military spouses’ service are more inclined to attend these types of events.
Table 5.22 Spouse Attendance at Informal Military Social Events by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 30,893 30.1% 27.0% 42.9% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,259 19.7% 24.4% 55.9% Very negative/ negative 1,123 15.1% 17.5% 67.5% Never thought about it 275 7.7% 12.7% 79.6%

In the last 12 months, about how many informal military social events, such as picnics, gatherings and holiday parties, have you attended? (Q26) Respondents All or nearly all or many of these events Some of these events Very few or none of these events

Overall 43,550 26.2% 25.8% 47.9%

Page 112

Spouses answered question 26 slightly differently across Services and across pay grade groups (see Appendices X and AJ). With regard to Service differences, Marine spouses (32.6%) were more likely than other Service spouses to report having attended all, nearly all, or many of the informal military social events. For pay grade groups, spouses of enlisted Service members were more likely than spouses of officers to report attending very few or none of these informal social events. Table 5.23 presents selected demographic information of spouses by their likelihood of attending military social events. There are not many major differences, but those who reported attending “all or nearly all” or “many” of these events tended to have more education than those who reported attending “very few or none” of these events. Also, spouses attending these events were more likely to have younger children at home, to be Active Duty spouses, and to have military spouses who were officers.
Table 5.23 Demographics of Spouses by Likelihood of Attending Military Social Events
In the last 12 months, about how many informal military social events, such as picnics, gatherings and holiday parties, have you attended? (Q26) All or nearly all or many Average age (Q38) Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) Less than Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's degree or higher Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13 to 17 years old 18 years old or older Military spouses' component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Military spouses' pay grade E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6 21.2% 49.3% 2.2% 12.3% 15.1% 22.8% 54.6% 2.1% 9.2% 11.3% 26.2% 56.5% 1.9% 6.7% 8.7% 74.2% 10.2% 15.6% 69.2% 12.5% 18.3% 58.9% 20.0% 21.1% 58.1% 48.7% 26.2% 12.2% 56.4% 46.9% 25.8% 13.3% 51.0% 46.1% 28.4% 14.7% 59.0% 41.0% 61.2% 38.8% 65.3% 34.7% 12.9% 87.1% 12.7% 87.3% 10.8% 89.2% 33 Some 34 Very few or none 34

Page 113

Perceived impact of DADT repeal on attendance at military social events. Table 5.24 presents data on the perceived impact of DADT repeal on attendance at military social events for all spouses and by the extent to which spouses attended these types of events in the last 12 months. The data are shown for spouses overall and for each Component separately. A majority of spouses (72.0%) said that the attendance of a gay or lesbian Service member with his or her partner would not affect how often they attend informal military social events. Less than one fifth (18.1%) of spouses said they would attend less often. Service members were more likely than their spouses to say that a repeal of DADT would impact their attendance at military social functions if a gay or lesbian Service member attended these events with a partner: 30.4% of Service members said they would stop attending military social functions, and another 5.0% said they would stop bringing their spouses to these events (see Q93 in Appendix D). The more events spouses reported attending in the past 12 months, the more likely they were to say that they would attend these types of events less often if a gay or lesbian Service member attended with a partner. Of those spouses who said they had attended all, nearly all, or many of these events, 27.8% said they would attend less often. Of those spouses who reported having attended very few or no military social events in the past 12 months (nearly half of all spouses), 11.7% said they would attend such events less often. This pattern was true for Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve Components as well.

Page 114

Table 5.24 Impact of DADT Repeal on Attendance at Informal Military Social Events
In the last 12 months, about how many informal military social events, such as picnics, gatherings, and holiday parties, have you attended? (Q26) All, nearly all, or many of these events ( 26.2%) Very few or none of these events ( 47.9%)

Overall

Assuming DADT is repealed, would the attendance of a gay or lesbian Service member with his or her partner affect how often you attend these types of military social events? (Q27) Overall Yes, I would attend these types of military social events more often Yes, I would attend these types of military social events less often No, it would not affect my attendance at these types of military social events Don't know Active Duty Yes, I would attend these types of military social events more often Yes, I would attend these types of military social events less often No, it would not affect my attendance at these types of military social events Don't know National Guard Yes, I would attend these types of military social events more often Yes, I would attend these types of military social events less often No, it would not affect my attendance at these types of military social events Don't know Reserve Yes, I would attend these types of military social events more often Yes, I would attend these types of military social events less often No, it would not affect my attendance at these types of military social events Don't know

N

%

Some of these events ( 25.8%)

559 8,203 31,315 3,877

1.4% 18.1% 72.0% 8.5%

1.6% 27.8% 63.5% 7.1%

1.3% 20.3% 70.6% 7.8%

1.3% 11.7% 77.3% 9.6%

270 3,841 14,268 1,598

1.4% 18.7% 71.9% 8.0%

1.6% 28.1% 63.5% 6.7%

1.2% 20.5% 70.6% 7.7%

1.5% 11.1% 78.4% 9.1%

89 1,577 6,449 850

1.0% 16.8% 72.5% 9.7%

1.2% 25.6% 64.7% 8.6%

1.3% 18.8% 71.6% 8.2%

0.9% 12.3% 76.0% 10.8%

200 2,785 10,598 1,429

1.6% 17.4% 71.7% 9.2%

2.2% 28.7% 61.4% 7.7%

2.0% 21.5% 68.8% 7.7%

1.3% 12.9% 75.7% 10.1%

Selected demographics of spouses who said they will attend military social events less often if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended with his or her partner are shown in Table 5.25. Those who would attend less often were more likely to have older children (6 years old or older) at home, but were otherwise similar to those who did not say they would attend these types of events less often.

Page 115

Table 5.25 Demographics of Spouses Who Said They Will Attend Military Social Events Less Often if DADT Is Repealed and a Gay or Lesbian Service Member Attended With His or Her Partner (Q27)
Would attend social events less often Average age (Q38) Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) Less than Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's degree or higher Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13 to 17 years old 18 years old or older Military spouses' component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Military spouses' pay grade E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6 21.2% 54.8% 2.6% 9.1% 12.4% 24.7% 54.0% 1.9% 8.7% 10.7% 67.6% 14.9% 17.5% 65.0% 15.7% 19.3% 52.5% 51.6% 30.0% 15.1% 54.6% 45.9% 26.5% 13.3% 63.6% 36.4% 62.4% 37.6% 14.1% 85.9% 11.3% 88.7% 34

All others 34

Note: "Would attend social events less often" includes those who responded "...I would attend these types of military social events less often." to Q27.

Spouse attendance at deployment-support activities. The survey asked spouses how many deployment-support gatherings they have attended during their military spouses’ most recent deployments since September 11, 2001, and whether the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would affect how often spouses attend deployment-support activities. A majority of spouses (60.5%) reported having attended very few or none of these events; 22.9% reported having attended all, nearly all, or many of these events; and 16.6% reported having attended some of these events (Table 5.26). As with military social events, those who were more positive about their military spouses’ military service attended more deployment-support activities than those who reported being negative about their military spouses’ military service.

Page 116

Table 5.26 Spouse Attendance at Deployment-Support Gatherings by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 23,092 26.0% 17.3% 56.8% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 9,063 18.0% 15.9% 66.0% Very negative/ negative 917 13.6% 11.1% 75.3% Never thought about it 194 13.6% 8.3% 78.1%

During your spouse's most recent deployment since September 11, 2001, how many deployment-support gatherings did you attend? (Q28) Respondents All or nearly all or many of these gatherings Some of these gatherings Very few or none of these gatherings

Overall 33,266 22.9% 16.6% 60.5%

Table 5.27 shows selected demographics for spouses by their likelihood of attending deploymentsupport gatherings. As with military social events, there were few differences among the three groups in Table 5.27. Those with more education and who have military spouses at higher pay grades were more likely to report attending these gatherings. Reserve spouses were more likely to have attended “very few or none” of these gatherings.

Page 117

Table 5.27 Demographics of Spouses by Likelihood of Attending Deployment-Support Gatherings
During your spouse's most recent deployment since September 11, 2001, how many deployment-support gatherings did you attend? (Q28)* All or nearly all or many Average age (Q38) Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) Less than Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's degree or higher Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13 to 17 years old 18 years old or older Military spouses' component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Military spouses' pay grade E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6 15.6% 56.0% 2.5% 10.2% 15.6% 17.4% 58.2% 2.9% 9.4% 12.2% 21.8% 59.4% 1.9% 7.5% 9.4% 71.3% 9.6% 19.1% 66.6% 12.7% 20.8% 66.4% 16.3% 17.3% 54.6% 54.0% 30.1% 13.6% 52.9% 50.4% 28.2% 13.9% 53.5% 45.7% 27.1% 13.8% 59.1% 40.9% 60.5% 39.5% 64.6% 35.4% 11.5% 88.5% 12.8% 87.2% 12.3% 87.7% 35 Some 34 Very few or none 34

*For Q28 the response "Does not apply, my spouse has not been deployed since September 11, 2001" is not included.

Perceived impact of a DADT repeal on attendance at deployment-support activities. Table 5.28 presents the perceived impact of a DADT repeal on attendance at deployment-support activities for all spouses and by how often spouses attended deployment-support gatherings. The data are shown overall and by Component. Overall, a majority of spouses (76.4%) said that the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would not affect how often they attend deploymentsupport activities; 13.8% said they would attend less often, 1.3% said they would attend more often, and 8.4% said they did not know. The more deployment-support gatherings spouses reported having attended, the more likely they were to say that they would attend deployment-support activities less often if the partner of a gay or
Page 118

lesbian Service member attended. Of those spouses who reported having attended “all or nearly all or “many” of these events, 23.5% said they would attend less often. Of those spouses who reported having attended “very few or none” deployment-support gatherings (a majority of spouses), 8.7% said they would attend such events less often. Differences by Component were small.

Table 5.28 Impact of DADT Repeal on Attendance at Deployment-Support Gatherings, Overall and by Component
During your spouse's most recent deployment since Sept. 11, 2001, how many deploymentsupport gatherings did you attend? (Q28)* All, nearly all, or many of these events ( 22.9%) Some of these events ( 16.6%) Very few or none of these events ( 60.5%)

Overall Assuming DADT is repealed and your spouse is deployed, would the presence of a partner of a gay or lesbian Service member affect how often you attend deployment-support activities? (Q29) Overall Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities more often Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities less often No, it would not affect my attendance at deployment-support activities Don't know Active Duty Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities more often Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities less often No, it would not affect my attendance at deployment-support activities Don't know National Guard Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities more often Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities less often No, it would not affect my attendance at deployment-support activities Don't know Reserve Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities more often Yes, I would attend deployment-support activities less often No, it would not affect my attendance at deployment-support activities Don't know 127 1,530 8,145 1,009 1.3% 12.8% 76.8% 9.1% 62 932 5,128 626 1.0% 12.9% 76.8% 9.2% 192 2,461 12,070 1,299 1.3% 14.3% 76.3% 8.1% 381 4,923 25,343 2,934 1.3% 13.8% 76.4% 8.4%

N

%

1.8% 23.5% 67.7% 7.0%

1.2% 19.4% 71.4% 8.0%

1.1% 8.7% 81.2% 9.1%

1.7% 24.6% 66.5% 7.2%

1.2% 19.8% 71.3% 7.7%

1.2% 8.6% 81.6% 8.6%

1.6% 20.7% 71.4% 6.3%

1.1% 16.3% 73.2% 9.4%

0.8% 8.6% 80.3% 10.3%

2.8% 20.7% 69.5% 7.1%

1.6% 22.3% 68.8% 7.3%

1.0% 9.0% 80.2% 9.8%

*For Q28 the response "Does not apply, my spouse has not been deployed since September 11, 2001" is not included.

The survey findings regarding attendance at informal military social activities and attendance at deployment-support gatherings were very similar. Importance of and participation in family support programs. Spouses were also asked how important military family programs are in supporting their overall family readiness and whether the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would affect their participation in such programs. More than half of spouses (57.8%) said that these programs are “very important/important,” 29.7% said they are “neither important nor unimportant,” and 12.5% said they are “very unimportant/
Page 119

unimportant” (Table 5.29). Those spouses who reported feeling positive about their military spouses’ current military service were more likely to believe that family programs are important in supporting family readiness, compared with those spouses with negative feelings about their military spouses’ military service (61.9% vs. 37.5%).
Table 5.29 Spouses Ratings of The Importance of Family Programs in Supporting Family Readiness by How Spouses Feel About Their Military Spouses' Current Military Service
Overall, how do you feel about your spouse's current military service? (Q12) Very positive/ positive 31,076 61.9% 28.1% 10.0% An equal mix of positive and negative feelings 11,321 51.2% 33.3% 15.5% Very negative/ negative 1,140 37.5% 29.7% 32.9% Never thought about it 272 44.3% 32.6% 23.0%

How important are military family programs in supporting your overall family readiness? (Q34) Respondents Very important/important Neither important nor unimportant Very unimportant/unimportant

Overall 43,809 57.8% 29.7% 12.5%

Perceived impact of a DADT repeal on participation in family support programs. Table 5.30 shows data on the impact a repeal of DADT is likely to have on the participation of spouses in family support programs overall and by how important the spouse believes military family programs are in supporting overall family readiness. These data are shown for all spouses and by Component. A large majority of spouses (75.1%) said that the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would not affect their participation in such programs. (In comparison, 43.1% of Service members said they would continue to participate in these programs assuming DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member participated in these programs with his or her partner (see Q94 in Appendix D). The remaining spouses said they would participate in such programs less often (15.2%), more often (1.1%), or that they did not know how attendance by a partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would affect their participation (8.6%). The greater importance spouses placed on family support programs, the more likely they were to say that they would participate in such programs less often because of the presence of the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member. Among spouses who said family support programs are “very important/important,” 18.5% said they would attend such events less often.

Page 120

Table 5.30 How Repeal Would Affect Family Readiness by Current Level of Readiness, Overall and by Component
How important are military family programs in supporting your overall family readiness? (Q34) Very important/ important ( 57.8%) Neither important nor unimportant ( 29.7%) Very unimportant/ unimportant ( 12.5%)

Overall Assuming DADT is repealed, if the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member participated in a family support program, would it affect your participation? (Q35) Overall Yes, I would participate in that family support program more often Yes, I would participate in that family support program less often No, it would not affect my participation in that family support program Don't know Active Duty Yes, I would participate in that family support program more often Yes, I would participate in that family support program less often No, it would not affect my participation in that family support program Don't know National Guard Yes, I would participate in that family support program more often Yes, I would participate in that family support program less often No, it would not affect my participation in that family support program Don't know Reserve Yes, I would participate in that family support program more often Yes, I would participate in that family support program less often No, it would not affect my participation in that family support program Don't know 151 2,364 11,055 1,476 1.2% 14.4% 74.8% 9.6% 73 1,338 6,690 888 0.9% 14.1% 75.4% 9.6% 209 3,317 14,796 1,702 1.1% 15.8% 75.1% 8.0% 433 7,019 32,541 4,066 1.1% 15.2% 75.1% 8.6%

N

%

1.2% 18.5% 71.4% 9.0%

0.9% 11.5% 79.0% 8.6%

1.2% 9.2% 83.1% 6.5%

1.2% 19.4% 70.9% 8.5%

0.9% 11.5% 79.7% 7.9%

1.5% 9.4% 83.2% 6.0%

0.9% 16.5% 72.6% 10.0%

0.8% 11.1% 78.4% 9.7%

0.7% 9.6% 82.5% 7.2%

1.4% 17.3% 71.7% 9.7%

0.9% 11.7% 77.1% 10.3%

0.8% 8.5% 83.3% 7.5%

Programs spouses would turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness. When asked what programs they would turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness assuming the repeal of DADT, those spouses who felt repeal would reduce their family readiness (8.2% of all spouses; Table 5.19) said they would turn to Family Support Programs (54.6%) most often. Other programs that these spouses would turn to include Military OneSource (selected by 45.4% of spouses), Deployment Support Programs (selected by 39.4% of spouses), and on-base chapels (selected by 31.3% of these spouses) (Table 5.31). Other programs were selected by less than 25% of these spouses.

Page 121

Table 5.31 Family Readiness Programs Spouses Would Use for Assistance in Sustaining Family Readiness if Affected by Repeal for Spouses Who Believe That Repeal Would Reduce Their Family Readiness
Percent selecting... What family readiness programs would you turn to for assistance in sustaining family readiness? (Q33) Respondents Family Support Programs Military OneSource Deployment Support Programs On-base Chapels Health Facilities Other Work-Life/Employee Assistance Programs
Note: Only for spouses who answered "Yes, it would reduce my family readiness" to Q32.

Whom would spouses turn to if they had concerns about the impact of a DADT repeal? A majority of spouses (68.5%) said they would turn to their military spouse if they had concerns about the impact of a repeal of DADT. Almost one third (31.4%) said they would not need to talk to anyone, and 26.8% said they would turn to a family member. Smaller percentages indicated they would turn to a friend outside of the family (19.9%), other military spouses (19.2%), a military chaplain (12.0%), or a community religious leader (11.4%). Other possible people or organizations that spouses might turn to were selected by less than 10% of spouses (Table 5.32).

Page 122

Table 5.32 To Whom Would Spouses Turn to if They Have Concerns About the Impact of the Repeal of DADT?
Percent selecting... If you had concerns about the impact of the repeal of DADT, to whom would you likely turn? (Q30) Respondents My spouse Would not need to talk to someone A family member A friend outside of your family Other military spouses Community religious leaders A military chaplain Family Readiness Group A neighbor Support services on the base or installation Military Family Life Consultants (MFLC) Someone else Key Spouse/Senior Spouse Airmen and Family Readiness Center Ombudsman/Ombuds Offices Support services in the civilian community Work-Life Program For All Spouses 43,552 68.5% 31.4% 26.8% 19.9% 19.2% 11.4% 12.0% 9.3% 5.9% 6.1% 6.0% 3.5% 3.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% 0.9% For Active Duty Spouses 19,827 69.0% 31.2% 27.7% 21.0% 20.8% 10.7% 12.4% 8.6% 6.5% 6.6% 5.8% 3.6% 4.0% 2.5% 2.5% 1.9% 0.8% For Reserve Spouses 14,860 67.3% 31.9% 23.7% 16.7% 15.2% 12.8% 11.2% 8.9% 4.9% 5.7% 6.6% 3.3% 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 0.9% For National Guard Spouses 8,865 67.8% 31.4% 26.3% 18.6% 17.0% 12.7% 11.4% 12.2% 4.7% 4.4% 6.2% 3.1% 1.7% 2.9% 0.9% 2.8% 0.9%

Preferences about how the military should prepare and assist spouses in understanding the new policy if DADT is repealed. The survey asked spouses how they would like the military to provide them with information on the new policy if DADT is repealed. Table 5.33 shows their responses by Component within each Service. The response option selected by the greatest percentage of spouses (43.0%) was “No special activities or communications would be necessary.” Smaller percentages of spouses selected “Distribute printed information to spouses about repeal” (37.4%), “Provide information about the repeal on military Web sites” (34.3%), and “Provide information through Family Readiness Group/Work-Life Program leaders” (21.2%). Other response options were selected by less than 20% of spouses. Active Duty Marine Corps spouses were less likely than others to say “No special activities or communications would be necessary” (36.5%). These spouses were most likely to say they would like printed information distributed to spouses about the repeal (40.9%).

Page 123

Table 5.33 Preferences for Providing Information to Spouses About the New Policy if DADT is Repealed
Overall How would you like the military to provide you with information on the new policy [if DADT is repealed]? (Q11) No special activities or communications would be necessary Distribute printed information to spouses about repeal Provide information about the repeal on military Web sites Have interactive chats available on line to answer questions from Service member spouses Conduct information sessions on bases and installations about repeal Provide information through military chaplains trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Provide information through other military counselors trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Provide information through Family Readiness Group/Work-Life Program leaders trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Offer courses to spouses on how to discuss repeal within their families Other Army National Army Guard Reserve 43.5% 39.7% 32.4% 43.4% 39.7% 33.4% Military Spouses' Service and Component Navy Reserve 44.4% 37.4% 34.5% Marine Corps 36.5% 40.9% 38.6% Marine Corps Reserve 40.8% 40.9% 34.8% Air Force 44.6% 33.7% 33.6% Air Air National Force Guard Reserve 46.8% 38.5% 29.9% 49.9% 34.0% 30.1% Coast Guard 48.3% 34.7% 32.0% Coast Guard Reserve 53.7% 32.9% 28.5%

N 19,039 16,000 14,793

% 43.0% 37.4% 34.3%

Army 41.7% 36.2% 35.0%

Navy 42.8% 38.8% 36.7%

3,191 5,367

8.2% 13.5%

8.8% 16.0%

8.2% 10.3%

8.3% 12.6%

9.6% 14.5%

7.3% 10.7%

8.8% 16.1%

6.5% 10.7%

7.0% 13.5%

6.9% 10.8%

6.2% 9.7%

7.2% 9.6%

5.9% 9.0%

5,891

14.5%

16.9%

13.4%

13.6%

14.8%

11.2%

17.4%

11.8%

13.3%

10.8%

10.8%

10.9%

10.4%

5,663

14.1%

15.7%

13.4%

14.3%

15.3%

12.7%

16.1%

11.8%

12.5%

10.9%

11.1%

11.3%

10.4%

8,308 3,337 1,649

21.2% 9.1% 3.6%

23.9% 11.0% 3.8%

21.3% 8.3% 3.3%

22.0% 8.9% 4.0%

20.9% 9.9% 3.2%

16.4% 7.6% 3.3%

26.1% 12.0% 3.7%

19.1% 7.3% 3.8%

18.6% 7.2% 3.9%

16.3% 5.7% 3.0%

15.6% 6.2% 3.6%

14.6% 6.2% 3.1%

10.6% 5.7% 3.5%

*Questions were answered thinking about the Service member with whom their spouse worked most recently if their spouse worked with more than one.

Page 124

HOUSING The survey asked spouses where they currently live, where they would prefer to live, what the most important factors are in choosing where to live, and how repeal of DADT might affect where they choose to live. Current housing preferences and important factors in choosing housing. Spouses were asked whether they currently live in on-base housing, in military housing offbase, or in civilian housing. Almost 80% of spouses (79.7%) live in civilian housing, 16.2% live in on-base housing, and 4.1% live in military housing off-base (Table 5.34). Very few Reserve or National Guard spouses live in on-base housing or in military housing off-base; almost one quarter (24.1%) of Active Duty spouses reported living in on-base housing and 5.9% reported living in military housing off-base (also in Table 5.34).

Housing Findings at a Glance: Current 79.7% of spouses said they live in civilian housing, 16.2% live in onbase housing, and 4.1% live in military housing off-base. 24.1% of Active Duty spouses currently live in on-base housing. Much smaller percentages (less than 2%) of Reserves and National Guard spouses reported living in on-base housing. Post repeal 44.2% of spouses said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/ unimportant” to them in choosing where to live, 27.7% said it would be “neither important nor unimportant.” 64.9% of all spouses said they would stay on-base if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner; 20.8% said they would try to move out. 65.9% of spouses currently living onbase said they would stay on-base if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner A majority of spouses (63.1%) said if living on base they would get to know the gay or lesbian Service member and his or her partner like any other neighbor.

A majority of spouses (71.9%) preferred living in civilian housing, 21.6% preferred on-base housing, and 6.5% preferred military housing off-base (Table 5.35). Responses to this question varied greatly by where spouses currently live. In general, spouses were likely to live in the type of housing they preferred, with the exception of military housing off-base. For spouses who live in military housing off-base, about one half (52.6%) prefer living there, but 25.3% would rather live in on-base housing and 22.2% would prefer to live in civilian housing. This was generally true for the individual Services as well. Marine Corps spouses were more likely than spouses overall to prefer living in on-base housing (31.1%). Navy and Coast Guard spouses were less likely than spouses overall to prefer living in on-base housing (15.1% and 12.0%, respectively).

Table 5.35 On-Base vs. Off-Base: Spouse Preferences on Where to Live and Current Type of Housing, Overall and by Service
Overall Where do you currently live? (Q21) In on-base housing In military housing, offbase In civilian housing

What is your preference on where to live? (Q20) Overall In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing Army In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing Navy In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing Marine Corps In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing Air Force In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing Coast Guard In on-base housing In military housing off-base In civilian housing

N

%

7,175 2,156 34,326

21.6% 6.5% 71.9%

73.0% 4.8% 22.2%

25.3% 52.6% 22.2%

11.0% 4.5% 84.5%

2,439 649 11,618

21.8% 5.8% 72.4%

73.1% 4.8% 22.1%

30.0% 47.0% 23.1%

11.5% 4.7% 83.7%

951 620 5,877

15.1% 11.0% 73.9%

62.9% 8.2% 28.9%

19.5% 58.8% 21.7%

7.6% 5.6% 86.7%

1,706 345 4,917

31.1% 7.0% 61.9%

77.2% 3.8% 19.0%

30.5% 55.2% 14.2%

16.6% 4.8% 78.6%

1,764 380 9,124

23.4% 4.2% 72.4%

76.2% 3.5% 20.3%

31.5% 44.3% 24.2%

10.7% 3.0% 86.3%

315 162 2,790

12.0% 7.4% 80.6%

58.8% 8.1% 33.1%

14.3% 49.8% 35.9%

8.0% 4.5% 87.6%

Page 126

Spouses most commonly selected the “safety of the community” (58.5%) and “cost of housing” (56.8%) as the most important factors they would consider given a choice of where to live. Smaller percentages of spouses selected the “quality of schools in the area” (44.4%), “housing condition” (39.7%), “proximity to spouse’s job” (21.6%), and “amount of space” (21.8%) (Table 5.36). Other factors were selected as being important by less than 20% of spouses.

Table 5.36 Most Important Factors Spouses Would Consider in Choosing Where to Live
Percent selecting... Assuming you had a choice on where to live, what are the most important factors you would consider? (Q22) Respondents Safety of the community Cost of housing Quality of schools in the area Housing condition Proximity to spouse’s job Amount of space Commuting time to your job The values of the community Neighbors that I know and trust Sense of the community in the neighborhood Easy access to the exchange, commissary, and MWR facilities Presence of children in the neighborhood Presence of local businesses Other For All Spouses 39,110 58.5% 56.8% 44.4% 39.7% 21.6% 21.8% 14.6% 9.1% 6.7% 5.9% 6.8% 3.7% 2.8% 2.5% For Active Duty Spouses 17,712 59.1% 57.2% 42.8% 41.0% 25.3% 24.0% 12.8% 7.2% 5.5% 5.2% 7.5% 3.5% 2.7% 2.6% For Reserve Spouses 13,490 58.9% 54.8% 48.3% 37.1% 15.2% 17.5% 18.4% 12.1% 8.2% 7.2% 6.6% 3.7% 2.8% 2.1% For National Guard Spouses 7,908 55.9% 57.4% 46.7% 37.1% 14.5% 18.0% 18.0% 13.2% 9.6% 7.4% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.8%

Impact of a DADT repeal on housing by perceived importance of repeal in housing choices. Spouses were asked to assume they lived in on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member lived with a partner in their neighborhood. They were then asked what they would do in that situation. Table 5.37 presents the overall responses to this question and spouse responses by how important they felt a repeal of DADT would be in considering where to live. The data are presented for everyone and then separately by Service. Although few spouses of Reserve Component Service members have the choice to live in on-base housing, this table (and the ones that follow) include both Active Duty and Reserve Component spouse responses. Overall, 64.9% of spouses said that assuming DADT is repealed and they lived on-base in the same neighborhood with a gay or lesbian Service member and partner, they “would stay on-base”; 20.8% said they “would try to move out.” (This is slightly higher than the 17.6% of Service members who
Page 127

responded “I would probably move off-base” in answer to a similar question on the Service member survey.) More than two fifths of spouses (44.2%) said a repeal of DADT would be “very unimportant/unimportant” in their considerations of where to live. A large majority of these spouses (91.8%) said that they “would stay on-base” if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner. A small number (2.5% of this group) “would try to move out.” Less than one fourth of spouses (21.8%) said a repeal of DADT would be “very important/important” in considering where to live. A majority of these spouses (63.3%) said they “would try to move out” if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner, whereas 17.2% said they “would stay on base,” and 19.5% said they did not know what they would do.
Table 5.37 Impact of DADT Repeal on Choosing Where to Live by Service
Assuming you had a choice of where to live, how important would a repeal of DADT be to you in considering where to live? (Q23) Very important/ important (21.8%) Neither important nor unimportant (27.7%) Very unimportant/ unimportant (44.2%)

Overall Assuming DADT is repealed and you live in on-base housing, if a gay or lesbian Service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay on-base or would you try to move out? (Q24) Overall I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know Army I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know Navy I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know Marine Corps I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know Air Force I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know Coast Guard I would stay on-base I would try to move out Don't know 1,733 389 272 72.1% 16.4% 11.5% 5,037 1,824 1,201 64.1% 21.3% 14.7% 3,076 1,390 909 59.5% 24.5% 16.0% 3,703 1,023 778 68.2% 17.9% 13.9% 6,636 2,378 1,567 64.8% 21.1% 14.1% 20,185 7,004 4,727 64.9% 20.8% 14.3%

N

%

Don't know (6.3%)

17.2% 63.3% 19.5%

69.6% 11.2% 19.2%

91.8% 2.5% 5.7%

43.2% 21.0% 35.7%

19.0% 62.3% 18.7%

69.3% 11.3% 19.4%

91.9% 2.6% 5.5%

45.5% 20.5% 34.1%

19.6% 60.8% 19.7%

73.9% 9.3% 16.7%

92.1% 1.7% 6.2%

41.4% 18.7% 39.9%

17.0% 62.9% 20.2%

66.6% 11.7% 21.7%

91.7% 2.9% 5.4%

43.7% 21.1% 35.3%

11.8% 67.4% 20.9%

67.8% 12.3% 19.9%

91.0% 3.0% 6.1%

39.8% 24.2% 36.0%

11.8% 68.4% 19.8%

73.6% 10.2% 16.1%

94.7% 1.3% 3.9%

40.5% 20.8% 38.7%

Note: The survey allowed spouses to select “Does not apply, I would not live on-base” for Question 24. These responses were set to missing to calculate the percentages in this table.

Page 128

Table 5.38 presents information on the demographics of spouses who said they “would try to move out” of on-base housing if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with his or her partner. This group includes 20.7% of all spouses. Table 5.38 compares this group with all other spouses who answered survey question 24. Those who said they “would try to move out” were generally not that different. They were more likely to have children between 6 and 17 years old and to have military spouses in higher pay grades.
Table 5.38 Demographics of Spouses Who Say They Would Try to Move Out if DADT is Repealed and a Gay or Lesbian Service Member Lived in Their Neighborhood With His or Her Partner (Q24)
Those who would try to move out Average age (Q38) Ever served in the military (Q4) Yes, previously but not now No Highest level of schooling completed (Q37) Less than Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's degree or higher Percent with children living at home by child's age group (Q41) 5 years old or less 6 to 12 years old 13 to 17 years old 18 years old or older Military spouses' component Active Duty Reserve National Guard Military spouses' pay grade E1-E4 E5-E9 W1-W5 O1-O3 O4-O6 21.6% 54.1% 2.6% 9.2% 12.4% 26.9% 52.0% 1.7% 8.7% 10.6% 69.2% 14.4% 16.4% 69.9% 14.0% 16.1% 52.5% 53.3% 30.6% 15.1% 56.8% 45.5% 25.2% 12.4% 63.3% 36.7% 64.2% 35.8% 14.3% 85.7% 11.3% 88.7% 34

All others 33

Note: "Those who would try to move out" includes those who responded "I would try to move out." to Q24. Those who replied "Does not apply..." to Q24 are excluded.

Page 129

Impact of a DADT repeal on housing by current housing. Table 5.39 presents findings on what spouses would do if they lived in on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member lived with a partner in their neighborhood by current housing location. The data are presented overall and then separately for each Service. Responses are of most interest for those who currently live in on-base housing because these spouses are the ones most likely to face this question if DADT is repealed. Among spouses who currently live in on-base housing, the majority (65.9%) “would stay on-base” and 19.0% “would try to move out.” These percentages are similar to the percentages among all spouses. Marine Corps spouses living on-base were less likely than all spouses living on-base to say they “would stay on-base” (58.6%). Coast Guard spouses living on-base were more likely than all spouses living on-base to say they “would stay on-base” (71.6%).

Actions spouses would take if living on base. When asked what action they would take if they were living on-base and a gay or lesbian Service member lived in their neighborhood with their partner, a majority of spouses (63.1%) said they “would get to know them like any other neighbor” (Table 5.40). Smaller percentages said they “would generally avoid them when they could” (13.2%), “do nothing” (12.8%), or “make a special effort to get to know the gay or lesbian Service member” (2.6%). These findings were consistent across Service and pay grade groups (see Q25 in Appendix X and AJ). Regardless of the type of housing in which they currently live, Marine Corps spouses were the least likely to say they “would get to know them like any other neighbor” (57.5%), and Coast Guard spouses were the most likely to say this (70.9%).

Table 5.40 Actions Spouses Would Take if Living On-Base and a Gay or Lesbian Service Member Lived in the Same Neighborhood With Their Partner by Service
Percent saying they would... While living on-base [and a gay or lesbian Service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner], which of the following would you do? (Q25) Respondents I would make a special effort to get to know the gay or lesbian Service member I would get to know them like any other neighbor I would generally avoid them when I could I would do nothing I would do something else Don't know For For For Marine For Air Coast For All Army For Navy Corps Force Guard Spouses Spouses Spouses Spouses Spouses Spouses 43,525 2.6% 63.1% 13.2% 12.8% 3.1% 5.2% 14,643 2.5% 62.4% 13.8% 12.8% 3.1% 5.4% 7,469 3.0% 66.4% 11.1% 12.4% 2.6% 4.6% 6,924 2.4% 57.5% 15.6% 16.5% 3.1% 4.9% 11,235 2.5% 63.7% 13.0% 12.0% 3.3% 5.5% 3,254 3.6% 70.9% 9.4% 9.4% 2.6% 4.1%

Page 131

6 6.1

Analysis of Service Member Comments Overview

This section presents the findings from an analysis of a subset of respondents’ comments in the open-ended item at the end of the Service member survey. In the Methods section below, we describe the sampling strategy for selecting the subset of comments and the analytic approach taken by the research team. We then present the study results. We focus on the 10 key themes that emerged in the survey comments and provide a description of what each of the 10 categories represents. Next, we present the key themes by different subgroups—for example, respondent Service and classification of the respondent on the basis of his or her responses to several fixedchoice survey items. Although many of the “top 10” issues re-appeared as key themes for various subgroups, their order of importance often varied. There was one exception to this re-ordering that we discuss. Finally, we briefly discuss the limitations of these research findings. 6.2 Methods

Coding was conducted on 2,000 open ended responses to item 103 in the Service Member survey, which stated: “If you would like to share other thoughts and opinions about the impacts on you, your family, your immediate unit, or your Service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, please use the space below.” Comment space was not limited to a set number of characters, thus providing Service members with an opportunity to fully describe their views and opinions. Comment sample selection. We used a multistage sampling scheme to select the subset of comments. First, the team created three classifications of respondent on the basis of individuals’ answers to 21 critical survey items. Respondents were classified as “Positive” if they answered “very positively” or “positively” on all 21 items. “Negative” respondents were those who chose “very negatively” or “negatively” for all of the critical survey items. Finally, respondents were classified as having “Mixed” attitudes toward DADT if their responses across the 21 critical items varied (e.g., the respondent might have marked “positively” on one item, “very negatively” on another, and “no effect” on others). Throughout this report, we refer to these three categories as “respondent class.” From the pool of respondents who completed item 103, we randomly selected 500 comments from both the Positive and Negative classes and 1,000 comments from the Mixed class. The rationale for analyzing more comments from this Mixed group was that these are the individuals whose views on repeal we know least about: Service members who had strong views about either the perceived positive or negative effects of repeal were those whose voices we heard most clearly in the Service member engagements and inbox comments. The perspectives of the large group “in the middle” remained somewhat unknown. We believed 1,000 of these comments would provide critical insights

Page 132

into the perceptions of this group. We sampled equal numbers of comments across the five Services to ensure diversity and allow us to examine if perspectives varied by respondent Service. Table 6.1 shows the number of comments sampled for each respondent class and Service.
Table 6.1
Number of Comments Sampled by Respondent Class and Service Respondent Class Positive Mixed Negative 100 200 100 100 200 100 100 200 100 100 200 100 100 200 100 500 1,000 500 Total 400 400 400 400 400 2,000

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard Total

Comment analysis and coding. The comments were imported into a database in NVivo, a qualitative software package that allows for the management, coding, and analysis of large volumes of qualitative data. An initial review of the comments revealed themes that were virtually identical to those identified in other qualitative data collected for this study (e.g., focus groups with Service members, comments submitted by Service members to the Department of Defense inbox). Consequently, the team used the same comprehensive coding scheme that was developed for the larger qualitative analysis task (see Volume 2 of this report) to code the sampled comments. In addition, the team developed a code to identify the “tone” of the comment, as follows: Positive: The comment indicated ways in which the respondent perceived repeal might benefit the military. Negative: The comment indicated ways in which the respondent perceived repeal might have a detrimental effect on the military. Neutral: Respondent wrote that repeal would have “no effect” on the military generally, or on a specific aspect of military life (e.g., “Repeal will not change our unit’s ability to get the job done.”). Rhetorical: Respondent used the space to ask a question or questions about specific areas of concern to him/her, but without an obvious positive or negative tone, e.g., “Will the military change the shower set-up?” The team applied one of these four codes to each comment. When the respondent’s views differed across topics (e.g., “This will not change our unit’s ability to get the job done, but I would rather not shower with a gay man”), different tone codes were applied, as appropriate, to different sections of the comment.

Page 133

Coding team. Several members of the coding team had worked on the larger qualitative analysis task for this study and thus were familiar with the codes and the decision rules for application of each code to a section of text. New team members were briefed on the coding scheme and procedures and began by coding a small number of comments. This work was reviewed by the team leader for consistency with the other coders, and corrective feedback was offered, as appropriate. In addition, because team members were working side-by-side in a DoD-DIACAP environment, they often discussed challenging comments as a group and came to a consensus about how the text should be coded. After all 2,000 comments had been coded, we were able to identify which themes had been raised most frequently across the entire dataset and by subgroups. The results of our analysis are presented below. 6.3 6.3.1 Results Comment tone

One of the important questions that this analysis sought to answer was: What are the views of Mixed respondents as expressed in the comments? Did their comments suggest a neutral (“no effect”) position? A belief that repeal would be problematic along certain dimensions? Or, as a group, did they tend more toward a positive perspective on repeal? In Table 6.2 we present the distribution of comment tone by respondent class. Positive respondents, with only a few exceptions, wrote comments that suggested a favorable attitude toward repeal. Comments written by Negative respondents were less consistent; more than half of the comments received a negative tone code, but the number of neutral comments was also quite high. In addition, about one tenth of the comments written by Negative respondents received a positive code. Our review of the distribution for the Mixed group indicated that their comments about repeal were truly varied in tone. Out of 1,100 comments that received a tone code, about 37% were positive, a third were neutral, and just under one quarter were negative. In addition, the Mixed group asked many more rhetorical questions than either the Positive or Negative respondent classes. These findings suggest a rather complicated picture of the “broad middle” of survey respondents as a group. They cannot be viewed as holding a consistent set of perspectives about the effects of repeal; that is, “mixed” is not the same thing as “neutral.” Rather, their views were distributed across the spectrum of perspectives. Also, the issues they raised were different from those raised by either the Positive or Negative respondent classes.

6.3.2 Comment themes Across the full dataset, themes raised by respondents were consistent with the findings elsewhere in this report. The ten themes that appeared most frequently in the coded data were as follows: 1. Privacy concerns. As has been reported both in Volume 2 of the final report, respondents appeared to be most concerned about the possibility of showering or rooming with someone who was known to the respondent to be gay or lesbian. The following two quotes are illustrative of how respondents tended to express their concerns: “I tend to consider myself a fairly open-minded individual however I would still have some issues with being forced to shower and/or live in extremely close quarters (e.g. ship's berthing) with a gay service member.” “I believe that most service personnel will have no major issues with working with openly gay individuals but will have issues if forced to share bathing and close living quarters.” The need to address the housing and showering arrangements was also the most frequently raised implementation issue in this sample of comments. 2. Religious/moral beliefs/values. This code was applied to those comments where the writer talked about his or her views of repeal relative to his or her personal beliefs and values. Included in such comments were those that said homosexuality conflicted with their personal values that were often based on religious beliefs: “We are not talking about discrimination against a race of Americans, we are talking about a behavior that goes against nature as well as God's law.” “We will have members with strong religious convictions that may not accepts living in the same room or showering with a homosexual. That will be our biggest challenge.” Others, however, said that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy went against their personal values:

Page 135

“I consider DADT a violation of fundamental human rights.” “Finding something morally reprehensible is not justification to behave in a way that alienates, degrades and abuses our brothers and sisters that are serving their country right alongside us.” Thus, for many respondents, their views of DADT—either its enactment or its potential repeal—are based on their core beliefs and values. 3. Military values. Respondents frequently talked about military values and military culture in relation to the potential repeal of DADT. As with the above code, there were divergent perspectives. Some in favor of repeal argued that DADT was a violation of core military values, including that the Armed Forces are charged with defending equality: “Diversity is one of the many things that the United States Armed Services push for. The Military has many policies about diversity and about how to treat people that are different from yourself regardless, of origin, gender, race, creed and why should sexual orientation be any different. I think the impact would be positive for me. I believe that no one should be discriminated against.” On the other hand, those who expressed concern with repeal said that allowing homosexuals into the military would represent a decline in the tradition and values of the U.S. military: “This is a very difficult topic to discuss. Being a Marine, I believe openly gay or lesbian marines would taint our Corps values and everything the Marine Corps stands for.” “Military service is a unique and special profession where members are held to a higher moral standard that the society at large. I respect an individual's right to choose a gay lifestyle. There is no place for that particular lifestyle in the military.” 4. Task cohesion. Respondents often discussed the potential effects of repeal of DADT in terms of their individual unit’s ability to accomplish its mission. Similar to what we have seen with the two themes above, there were two perspectives: Some respondents said they believed repeal would have “no impact” on their unit’s ability to get the job done; “It truly makes no difference as far as doing a job goes. We all bleed red, and if someone wants to serve the united states by joining the service then why stop them.” “I think this should be repealed. I don't like the fact that the military is discriminating against a group of highly capable and dedicated people. We should get past old prejudices. I don't believe this should affect moral or unit effectiveness in most cases.”
Page 136

Others argued that accomplishing the mission is the most important objective, but that having gays or lesbians in the unit would negatively affect the unit’s ability to do its job: “I believe that repealing the don't ask don't tell will have significant effects on the military and I am not willing to risk the freedoms I love by jeopardizing the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.” 5. Equal rights. The vast majority of comments that received this high-ranking code expressed the belief that DADT is a discriminatory policy, one that violates the core American principle of equality for all citizens: “Overall, we need to exercise equality with our members and treat this in the same manner as a change in civil rights.” “Thank you for your courage and leadership in repealing this prejudicial practice within the military. It's about time we started to live up to the Constitution's "All Men Are Created Equal" and liberty for all. I'm proud of the direction my country is taking with regard to eliminating discrimination and thank you for your efforts.” 6. Gays/lesbians will conduct themselves professionally/personal life is private. Many respondents said it was none of their business what anyone did in his/her personal life, and that sexual preference had no place in the workplace. Most said that as long as everyone behaved professionally, repeal should not be an issue: “In my opinion, whether or not someone is homosexual/lesbian or not, that shouldn't be brought up in a military/work environment. If a homosexual/lesbian person chooses to tell someone in confidence, that is fine. It should not be the topic of discussion in the work environment, neither should heterosexual relations.” “The service members usually don’t care if there are homosexual military members, as long as whatever they choose to do is done privately and not in the work area.” 7. Distraction. Several respondents felt DADT was a distraction from other issues, particularly since the country is currently at war: “There is no need for more drama and violence when we are already engaged in two wars.” “This was just a small example that would take a lot assets and money to work on. The money that we as a military should not be even thinking about. Especially, when we still have brothers and sisters overseas preserving our nations freedom.”
Page 137

8. Current presence of gays/lesbians as an argument to not repeal—DADT is working fine, it’s “not broken.” Numerous respondents argued that DADT should not be repealed because it is a policy that they believed to be working well. A common refrain within these comments was, simply, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” 9. General comment about unit cohesion. Several respondents argued that repeal of DADT would be damaging to unit cohesion, and did not expand further in their comment. Below are two examples of such comments: “I strongly believe that tolerance is a much better way to achieve unit cohesion and discipline than perpetuating homophobia is.” “I believe repeal would cause dissention in the ranks, not only between homosexuals who would serve openly and those who disagree, but also between both groups of heterosexuals: those who condone the repeal and those who do not, making it harder for leaders to boost morale and unit cohesion.” 10. This issue is comparable to previous military integration efforts (e.g., African Americans, women). Finally, respondents (none of whom were in the Negative respondent class) said that the potential repeal of DADT is a similar challenge to previous efforts to integrate women and African Americans into the military. They often said, as illustrated in the second quote below, that the military was able to adjust to change during those initiatives, and it would adjust to change this time as well: “To ban one set of service members based on sexual orientation is kin to banning service members based on race or sex. Both of which are unthinkable in today's society.” “HISTORY SHOW'S US WE'RE CAPABLE OF THE CHANGE. AFRICAN AMERICANS AND WOMEN ARE SERVING PROUDLY NOW AS PROOF OF THAT.” Key themes by respondent class. As noted, the above “top 10” themes represent the themes that appeared most frequently in the complete dataset. When we reviewed the key themes by respondent class, important differences emerged in how these issues were ordered (Table 6.3).

Current presence of gays/lesbians as an argument to not repeal—suspecting is better than knowing

Among the Positive respondents, the top themes were those that strongly support repeal—equal rights, for example, was at the top of the list among comments from this respondent class. Two additional issues emerged among this group: In Item 6, the theme is that job performance is not related to an individual’s sexual orientation. Some respondents said that gays and lesbians can be just as effective on the job as heterosexuals; others argued that repeal would make gay and lesbian Service members even more effective since they would not have to worry about their careers: “I believe that what makes a good soldier is proper leadership, training, motivation and teamwork and that homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals in their ability to become good soldiers.” “I think repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell would allow certain service members to actually do their job better b/c they're not always on guard about their personal life.” Item 10 reflects comments stating that gays and lesbians should be able to serve their country freely, that sexual orientation should not be a bar from service:

Page 139

“I believe that any American Citizen has the right and freedom to serve their country if they wish to do so. An individual is no less worthy of shedding their blood or giving their life for our Country than any other individual regardless of their sexual preference.” Mixed and Negative respondents most frequently mentioned concerns about personal privacy. Personal beliefs and values were highly ranked for both of these respondent classes, as were comments about “cohesion” (task cohesion for the Mixed, overall unit cohesion for the Negative). In other areas, however, these two groups diverged. The Negative respondents tended to echo the main themes seen in the overall coding results, with two additions: First, they often stated that they would leave the military (“retention”) if DADT gets repealed, and that the push for repeal was driven by political interests (“politics”). Neither of these themes appears in Table 6.3 for the other two groups. Mixed respondents mentioned issues that were commonly mentioned by the Positive respondents. These themes include the importance of gay Service members’ ability to serve freely in the Armed Forces and the argument that the issue of repeal is similar to previous integration efforts. Three new issues appeared in the comments of the Mixed respondents: First, repeal may lead to some rough going initially, but the military will adjust in due time: “I don't know what the best course of action is, but if it is repealed there will likely be problems and significant challenges in the short term, but I would suspect it would be mainly only in the short term.” Second, the implementation of repeal will require clear policies and guidelines for Service members to follow and leaders to enforce: “However, if [DADT is] repealed, acceptance of the new policy needs to be enforced and embraced by all levels of command.” Third, repeal raises concerns centered around discrimination. One expressed concern was that gays will be given “special treatment”; that is, there may be quotas for the military to meet in terms of promotions: “I can see the DC brass looking for quotas, did we promote enough gays this year? How many Gays do we have, should we recruit more Openly Gay members, a BEAN counters dream job!!” Another concern related to discrimination expressed by Mixed respondents was that there may be an increase in lawsuits by gays and lesbians who feel they have been slighted:

Page 140

“Will be a problem with EO if SM loses bearing and is treated like any other SM for corrective training. SM may think they deserve to be treated differently since they may be gay/lesbian.” “I think the administrative burden of the repeal, and its impact on readiness (due to the time it takes to deal with all the special cases) is not worth the repeal. Instead of the repeal providing equality, it will create hundreds of special cases.” A third discrimination-related concern of the Mixed respondent class leaned a little more toward the Positive group’s perspectives, namely, that the military will need to ensure that leaders do not allow harassment of gays and lesbians: “In my belief, the main difficulty will be ensuring all service members are treated fairly and impartially.” Once again, we see that the Mixed respondent class cannot be neatly classified as leaning favorably toward or against repeal, nor can this group of respondents necessarily be viewed as “neutral” about the issue. This respondent class appears to represent themes that are commonly expressed by respondents in each of the other respondent classes. Key themes by Service. In addition to respondent class, we examined whether the key themes varied by respondents’ Service. Table 6.4 shows the “top 10” issues and their varying distribution across the five Services. Privacy concerns were the most frequently commented upon issue, regardless of a respondent’s Service. Many of the top issues were the same across Services, although their relative rank differed for each group. We examined in greater detail whether comments about “military values” or “task” or “unit cohesion” varied in tone across the Services. As noted previously, respondents often used the same constructs (“beliefs and values”), but in very different ways. Would the Marines, for example, have more comments about military values that carried a negative tone (e.g., “Repeal will damage our core values”)? Would Coast Guard respondents’ comments about task cohesion carry more positive tones? When we reviewed both of these codes by comment tone, there were no differences by Service. In each Service, the number of comments that carried a positive code was about equal to those that carried a negative code. The main difference across the Services was the relative order of the key issues, not their presence or absence among the comments.

The primary limitation of the reported findings is that they are based on a very small subset of the comments received from Service members who completed the survey. More than 40,000 Service members had something to say at the end of their surveys; our analysis is based on a sample of 2,000 comments. It is possible that a larger sample would reveal a different ordering of themes overall, as well as within each of the subgroups (respondent class, Service). It is also possible that other issues would emerge as more prominent than the ones reported here. Nevertheless, our review suggests that the issues raised by these Service members are similar to the issues that were expressed in other qualitative data collected in the course of this study. Privacy continues to emerge as the most important concern expressed by Service members, except for those in the Positive respondent class. In this respect, we believe our analysis to be sound—the findings here corroborate findings from the other collected qualitative data. Exploration of additional comments from the Service member survey may change the hierarchy of themes, but is unlikely to yield any new themes or insights into Service members’ perspectives concerning a repeal of DADT.

Page 143

7 7.1

Analysis of Spouse Comments Overview

The spouse survey consisted of 42 fixed-choice response items and two open-ended questions that asked respondents to write in their thoughts about family readiness or other concerns that they wanted to address. Overall, the spouse survey results were positive. Westat was tasked with analyzing a total of 2,000 comments from spouse surveys, with an emphasis on those individuals whose survey responses were not clearly either strongly positive or strongly negative. This approach to selecting comments allowed us to discover if there were any concerns for spouses that had not been identified previously This chapter presents the results of this targeted analysis; the findings should not be seen as generalizable to the larger pool of respondent comments. In the pages that follow, we describe how we drew each sample, as well as our approach to analyzing the comment data. Then, for each question, we present the themes that appeared most frequently in the overall dataset and provide a description of what each of those themes means. This is followed by a thematic assessment by subgroup, looking specifically at how themes varied across subgroups. As the reader will discover, our findings suggest that these respondents tended to express concerns about the effects of repeal on their military spouses or their children, two issues that were not explicitly asked about in the survey questions. This is not to suggest that these respondents argued repeal would have an overwhelmingly negative effect on their families; indeed, most said that repeal would not have a direct impact on them at all. Rather, our findings indicate a couple of areas where respondents appear to have had some lingering concerns. 7.2 Methods

Through agreement with the CRWG, coding was conducted on 2,000 written comments, 1,000 for each of the two open-ended questions in the survey. The first was item 36, which was the last of six questions about the perceived impact of repeal on family readiness, defined as “how prepared families are to handle the challenges of military life.” This question read as follows: “Please tell us if you have any other thoughts or comments about how a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will affect your family readiness.” Space was provided for the respondent to write in his or her answer to this question. This question was followed by seven items asking about the respondent’s demographic characteristics (e.g., age, number of children in different age groups, race).

Page 144

The second open-ended item, item 44 (the last question in the survey), was phrased as follows: “As the last question in the survey, we’d like you to tell us about any other thoughts or opinions you have —positive, negative, or neutral—about the implications on family readiness and support or other aspects of military life if the government decides to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy.” Again, space was provided for the respondent to write in his or her answer to this question. Comment sample selection. We used a multistage sampling scheme to select the subset of 1,000 comments for each of the two survey items. First, the team created three classifications of respondent on the basis of individuals’ answers to eight critical survey items. Respondents were classified as “Positive” if they answered “very positively” or “positively”4 on all eight items. “Negative” respondents were those who chose “very negatively” or “negatively” for all of the critical survey items. Finally, respondents were classified as having “Mixed” attitudes toward a repeal of DADT if their responses across the eight critical items varied (e.g., the respondent might have marked “positively” on one item, “very negatively” on another, and “no effect” on others). Throughout this report, we refer to these three categories as “respondent class.” For each question, we randomly selected from the pool of respondents 250 comments from both the Positive and Negative classes and 500 comments from the Mixed class. This selection process resulted in a sample size of approximately 1,000 comments for Item 36 and 1,000 comments for Item 44. The rationale for analyzing more comments from the Mixed group was that these are the individuals whose views on repeal we know least about: Spouses who had strong views about either the perceived positive or negative effects of repeal were those whose voices we heard most clearly in the spouse engagements, such as the Information Exchange Forums, focus groups, and Family Readiness Leadership Discussion Groups (see Volume 2). Because the perspectives of the large group “in the middle” remained somewhat unknown, we believed 500 comments for each openended survey item would provide critical insights into the perceptions of this group. By selecting twice as many Mixed respondents, we increased the likelihood of reading comments that included both positive and negative tones. This does not mean that overall these respondents thought repeal would have a negative effect on their families or the military. In addition, this analysis is not intended to be statistically representative of all survey respondents. In addition to sampling on respondent class, we sampled equal numbers of comments across the five Services. This helped to ensure diversity and allowed us to examine if perspectives varied by the
4

Comment analysis and coding. The comments were imported into a database in NVivo, a qualitative software package that allows for the management, coding, and analysis of large volumes of qualitative data. Members of the analytic team read through several hundred comments for each item prior to coding the sampled data in order to develop a provisional coding scheme was particular to this set of comments. After the scheme was developed, we reviewed the codes again as a group, making edits or additions as appropriate. Throughout the coding process, team members continued to consult with each other about the codes, often to clarify the decision rules about when a comment should be tagged with a particular code. The same coding scheme was used for item 36 and 44. In addition to creating codes that reflected the content of the spouse comments, the team also developed a set of codes to identify the “tone” of the comment, as follows:

Page 146

Positive: The comment indicated ways in which the respondent perceived repeal might benefit military families. Negative: The comment expressed an area of concern, or indicated ways in which the respondent perceived repeal might have a detrimental effect on military families. No effect/Neutral: Respondent wrote that repeal would have “no effect” on the family generally, or on a specific aspect of family life (e.g., “Repeal will not impact my family’s readiness.”). Rhetorical: Respondent used the space to ask a question or questions about specific areas of concern to him or her, but without an obvious positive or negative tone, e.g., “If my chaplain says homosexuality is morally wrong, is she liable to be hit with a discrimination complaint?” When the comment contained content relevant to the question being asked, the team applied one of these four codes to the text. If the respondent expressed different perspectives across more than one theme (e.g., “This will not affect my family on base, but I am uncomfortable knowing that my husband would be showering with a gay man”), different tone codes were applied, as appropriate, to different sections of the comment. Often, however, the team came across comments that could not be coded to one of the “tones.” We thus developed several additional categories to reflect the following issues: No comment/Irrelevant—Although every attempt was made to remove “comments” such as “NA,” “No comment,” “I have nothing to say,” numerous such comments remained in the datasets. In addition, the team came across comments that did not pertain to the question being asked (e.g., “I have not received my insurance card yet”). The code No comment/irrelevant was applied to all such comments. Refer to Question 36—Respondents often used the space for item 36 to write comments about concerns other than family readiness issues. Then when they encountered item 44, they had little to add. In some instances in the item 44 dataset, respondents simply referenced what they had written previously (which was generally not available in our dataset). All such statements received the code Refer to Question 36. Don’t ask me, ask my spouse—As we will discuss later in this section, numerous respondents indicated that their military spouses should be the ones surveyed about their views on repeal. This type of response was telling in and of itself—thus, all such comments received the code Don’t ask me, ask my spouse. Coding team. All members of the coding team had worked on the analysis and coding of the Service member survey comments (see Volume 1, Section 6). They were thus well versed in the importance of having a coherent, agreed-upon coding structure and all contributed to the development of the comprehensive coding scheme for the spouse survey comments. They also worked as a group to develop the decision rules for application of each code to a section of text. In addition, because

Page 147

team members were working side-by-side in a DoD-DIACAP environment, they often discussed challenging comments as a group and came to a consensus about how the text should be coded. After each set of 1,000 comments had been coded, we were able to identify which themes had been raised most frequently across the entire dataset and by subgroups, both for item 36 and item 44. The results of our analyses are presented below. 7.3 Results for Item 36—Perceived impact of repeal on family readiness

Team members read through several hundred comments for each item in an effort to identify key themes that appeared to define spouses’ responses to the two questions. The most significant feature of these comments—fully reflected in our coding scheme—was the respondents’ propensity to reference important others when writing about the perceived effects of a repeal of DADT. More specifically, respondents often said, “Repeal will not affect me at all,” and instead expressed concern about how repeal would affect their spouses or children, as in the following illustrative examples: • • “I just don’t want our children to be overly exposed. It is against our religious beliefs.” “Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would assist my husband in his administrative duties as it would save him time for looking into the personal lives of his crew & leave him more time to deal with important issues.” Repeal would have an effect on the respondent, but only indirectly, by his or her relation to another person. There are a couple of possible explanations for this relational focus, none of them mutually exclusive: One is that if the respondents and their families live off base, they may have very little connection with the military lifestyle outside of the military spouse’s actual service. As a result, repeal would have little direct effect on the spouse. A second explanation is that the respondent’s own identities are crafted on their connection to others: mainly as wives and mothers since the majority of these respondents can be assumed to be female. If so, the impact of repeal would indeed be at one remove for the respondent, who might be distressed by repeal because her military spouse is affected negatively. A third explanation, is that the survey itself has defined the respondent by her links to those important others. For example, the first set of questions in the instrument is labeled, “About You,” but then asks the respondent in which branch of the Armed Forces her spouse currently serves, the current deployment status of the respondent’s spouse, how many times since September 11, 2001, the military spouse has been deployed, and several other questions
Page 148

specifically about the military spouse’s service experience. In short, the framework of the survey probably also had a role in how respondents wrote about the perceived effects of repeal. 7.3.1 Comment tone for Item 36

One of the important questions that this analysis sought to answer was: What are the views of Mixed respondents as expressed in the comments? Did their comments suggest a neutral (“no effect”) position? Or did their comments more closely resemble those of either their Positive or Negative counterparts? In Table 7.3 we present the distribution of comment tone by respondent class. Table 7.3 Item 36—Distribution of Comment Tone by Respondent Class
Respondent Class Positive Negative No Effect/ Neutral Positive Rhetorical Don’t Ask Me No Comment/Irrelevant Total Number of 5 Coded Comments 47 41 154 5 7 27 281 Positive 152 215 108 8 2 29 514 Positive 223 10 0 8 0 16 257

Comment tone overall basically reflected the survey respondent class. Comments from Positive respondents tended to receive a positive tone code, although even this was not true across the board. Almost 17% of the comments from this group of respondents were coded as expressing a belief that repeal would have detrimental effects, while a slightly lower percentage envisioned “no effect” from repeal. Comments written by Negative respondents were very consistent; no comments received a positive tone code, and only 10 had a no effect/neutral tone code. For the Mixed group, the comments about repeal were truly varied in tone, with a high number receiving a neutral tone code, and slightly more comments receiving a negative tone code than a positive tone code. It should be noted that given that comments afford respondents the opportunity to give more nuanced

The reader is reminded that some respondents offered perspectives on different issues within the same comment. When the tones varied across these issues, team members coded each section of text separately. As a result, the total number of coded comments exceeds the total number of cases for each respondent class.
5

Page 149

views than the fixed-choice responses, this lack of a one-to-one relationship between tone and respondent class is not surprising. These findings suggest a rather complicated picture of the “broad middle” of survey respondents as a group. They cannot be viewed, as a group, as holding a single set of perspectives about the effects of repeal; that is, “mixed” is not the same thing as “neutral.” Rather, their views were distributed across the spectrum of perspectives. As we shall see, their main themes are parallel with the main themes from both the Positive and Negative respondent classes. Item 36—Comment tone by Service. We also looked at the distribution of comment tone by military spouse’s Service (see Table 7.4, below). The table below suggests that Marine Corps spouses made proportionately more negative comments compared to the other Services; otherwise, no clear patterns can be discerned from the 1,000 comments on this item of the spouse survey.
Table 7.4 Item 36—Distribution of Comment Tone by Spouse Service Army Negative No Effect/ Neutral Positive Rhetorical Don’t Ask Me No Comment/ Irrelevant 94 71 62 4 2 27 Navy 72 46 60 5 3 18 Marine Corps 100 43 35 4 3 18 Air Force 88 52 58 5 3 9 Coast Guard 70 56 50 5 0 2

Item 36—Comment tone by respondent age group. Finally, we wanted to see if there were any differences in comment tone by respondent age group. Some of our study findings indicated a perception that “younger” Service members and their spouses were likely to be more comfortable with homosexuality and thus to hold a more favorable attitude toward repeal. Our results are displayed in Table 7.5. We caution the reader to focus not on the total number of comments in any particular cell, since we did not have equal numbers of respondents across the age groups for this sample. Rather, attention should be paid to the number of negative comments relative to either neutral or positive remarks within an age group. Using that framework, we saw differences at either end of the age distribution. Respondents in the 21- to 25-year-old age group were as likely to express negative as positive comments, and the 41 and older age group were nearly three times as likely to offer a negative comment as a positive one. For all age groups, there were a significant number of comments that reflected a “no effect” statement about a particular issue.

7.3.2 Item 36—Leading themes overall Although item 36 asks respondents to comment on how repeal might affect their family readiness, the reader will note that this was the most prevalent theme only for the Positive respondent class. This issue will be discussed in more detail below. The issues that were raised most frequently by respondents for item 36 were as follows: 1. Spouse Effects—Based on the team’s reading of the data, respondents tended to say that repeal would not affect them directly, but some did express concern about how repeal might affect their military spouse. Thus, we developed the higher-order category “Spouse effects” for our coding scheme; that category, in turn, was broken down into subcodes that reflected respondents’ specific concerns about the effect of repeal on their military spouses. These subcodes were as follows: Overall – We used this code for general comments about the perceived impact of repeal on the military spouse. For the full item 36 dataset, this was the most frequently used of the six subcodes used to describe spouse effects. All of these “overall” comments carried a negative tone code: o “Gays and lesbian do not bother me one bit. Now them being in the military may bother my spouse and overall that is what matters.” Privacy —Respondents often expressed concern about their spouse’s perceived loss of privacy and the impact this, in turn, would have on their family. All comments coded to privacy were also coded either as having a negative tone or, less often, as being a rhetorical question:

Page 151

o

“I know my husband would not be happy on a deployment sharing a berthing area. His stress over it would affect our family.”

Safety —This code was applied to those comments that addressed the perceived effect of repeal on the military spouse’s safety. Respondents wrote about safety issues from different perspectives. For example, some expressed their opinions about how a repeal of DADT would affect their spouses’ safety in a combat environment. Again, this was often seen as having a very real, albeit indirect, effect on family readiness: o “The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would negatively affect family readiness as it would most certainly affect unit cohesion putting my spouse at a higher risk of fatality in combat.” Although most of the comments about combat safety carried a negative tone code, there were a few respondents who said they believed their spouses’ safety might be improved as a result of repeal, as in the following example: o “People are people. I don’t care if they are gays or lesbians as long as they keep my husband safe and bring him home to my kids and I!” In addition to combat safety, a couple of respondents were worried about the direct—if generalized health-related—risks to their spouses if a gay or lesbian member was a unit member: o “It would affect the safety of our military service. You can contract AIDS through blood and bodily fluids. If a gay person was shot in combat those helping him would be at risk. Where would they shower without putting others at risk or use the bathroom.” Finally, in a slightly different vein, there were comments that spoke to the respondents’ concerns about how gay Service members themselves might be endangered by heterosexual unit members: o “I would not like to see any heterosexuals to hate or beat up homosexuals when they find out they are homosexuals. This has happen[ed] in military.”

Page 152

Stress/Distraction—This code was applied to comments that addressed either the effect of repeal on an already stressed military spouse, and thus to the respondent in their role as spouse, or the belief that repeal would be a distraction to the military spouse’s unit: o “I know my husband would be very upset and this would add stress to him therefore it would add stress to me as his primary supporter.” Military spouse’s view of repeal—This code was used for survey comments that talked not about the respondent’s perspective on repeal, but the viewpoint of his or her military spouse. The few comments that received this code were all coded as negative in tone. Again we see the spouse in the role of speaking for the Service member: o “My spouse would be more affected by the repeal than me. I think he would feel very uncomfortable being deployed and living close to someone who is openly gay. He has also expressed concerns to me about being in command over someone who is gay.” Career effects—This code was used for those comments about how repeal might affect the respondent’s spouse’s career including the respondent’s own presumed support for her spouse’s continued service. All of the comments that received this code also carried a negative tone and were coded accordingly: o “The repeal will definitely change my mind and support towards my husband’s future in the military.” 2. Child Effects—A second common theme for item 36 was the perceived effect of repeal not on the respondent, but on the respondent’s children. The language used in the majority of these statements was fairly consistent: First, numerous comments conveyed the respondent’s concern about “exposing” his or her child to gays or lesbians, as illustrated below: o “A major concern that I have is the effect of the repeal of this policy on my children in that they could possibly be regularly exposed to open homosexual couples.” The second major issue involved the respondent’ concerns about a conflict between the values they were trying to teach their children and the military’s acceptance of a lifestyle with which the respondents did not agree: o “I am trying to teach my children the important values that we learned as children. Family is a man and a woman.”

Page 153

Although less numerous, there were a few positive comments related to the repeal’s potential impact on the respondents’ children. These comments often referenced the value of “equality” as an important lesson for their children to learn: o “The repeal of DADT would be an excellent lesson in tolerance, diversity and equality for our children.” 3. Personal values—Comments about the respondent’s personal values and/or religious views with regard to the repeal of DADT were coded to this category. Although there were some statements indicating that repeal was in line with the respondent’s values and beliefs, the majority of these comments stated that homosexuality was against the writer’s values. Such comments received a negative comment tone since they indicated a negative view of repeal, should it occur: o “I am uncomfortable with homosexuality due to my religious beliefs and convictions. Would rather not have it anywhere in my life.” 4. Equal rights—This code was applied to comments about the potential repeal of DADT relative to equal rights for Service members and/or the military’s support of such equality. This issue was mentioned only by Positive or Mixed respondent classes, and all such comments carried a positive tone: o “If one is able-bodied and willing to join the military to defend their country anyone should be given that right. Open, fair, freedom, rights. It’s what our country stands for. Let gays/lesbians serve openly and don’t tolerate abuse of them.” o “Family is our number one priority. We both come from military families and are very disappointed that homosexuals are discouraged from joining. We believe it is discriminatory and would like to encourage all of our family members, regardless of religion, race, and/or orientation to become a part of serving this country.” 5. Unit effects — We applied this code to comments in which the respondent discussed his or her views of the potential effects of repeal on unit cohesion, including both task and social cohesion. Also tagged under this code were comments on the perceived impact of repeal on military readiness overall. o “I am highly concerned that the problems and issues created by a repeal of this law would have very serious and negative effects on our military’s organization, efficiency, and battle-readiness.”

Page 154

There were three other key codes: 6. Family readiness —This was the core issue on which item 36 was focused. With the exception of Positive respondents, the majority of comments from others for this item did not address family readiness at all, despite the inclusion of a definition of “family readiness” in the section of the survey preceding item 36. Nevertheless, any comments that clearly addressed “family readiness” and repeal of DADT were tagged with the “family readiness” code. The majority of such comments received either a positive or no effect/neutral tone code; only about 20% of the comments were coded as having a negative tone. In both the positive and negative comments below, the respondents not only pointed out the effects of repeal on their own families, but also the larger system of support for families and family readiness: o “I greatly favor a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and do not feel it would have a negative impact on my family readiness. In addition it may have a positive impact on many families and their readiness plans and support systems.” o o “It would not affect my family readiness at all.” “We rely on community support, especially during our members’ deployments. Have open gays, lesbians in that community would create unease, which in turn would weaken our community support system.” 7. Military values—This code was applied to comments about how the repeal of DADT was perceived by the respondent to be either in line with or against core military values. These comments varied in tone, with an almost equal number of positive and negative tones: o “The military has often been a leader in championing social change to reduce bias and discrimination. It is time to repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and provide fairness under the Constitution of law for all those dedicated to serving our great nation.” o “If DADT is repealed, we, as a family, would be disa-opinted. The military would have been the only place other than church that upholds the same core values as us. Repealing DADT would make military no different from everything else that tries to please the minority. Military should stay the same.” 8. Ability to serve freely – Comments that fell under this code referred to the freedom of individuals to serve in the military without regard to sexual orientation. The majority of respondents who

Page 155

commented about the freedom of gays and lesbians to serve in the military were coded to a positive tone: o “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. The gay and lesbian men and women in the military should have equal rights because I believe they are serving their country with distinction and valor.” Item 36 - Key themes by respondent class. As noted, the themes in the preceding discussion represent those issues or ideas that appeared most frequently in the overall dataset (i.e., across all 1,000 comments). When we reviewed the key themes by respondent class, important differences emerged in which issues were raised and how they were ordered relative to one another in terms of frequency. Again, it is important to stress that frequency is not necessarily synonymous with importance or felt intensity. Positive respondent class. Four of the five most frequently expressed themes in comments from the Positive respondent class indicate a group of respondents that, for the most part, said repeal would benefit the military overall. These themes are: family readiness; equal rights; spouse effects; ability to serve freely; and military values. All comments coded to equal rights, the ability of gays and lesbians to serve freely if DADT is repealed, and the relationship of repeal to military values carried positive tones codes for this respondent group. Negative respondent class. The most frequently expressed themes for this group of respondents were spouse effects, child effects, and personal values, and unit effects. These respondents also commented frequently on how repeal would affect their attendance and/or their children’s attendance at either Family Readiness Groups (FRGs) or other social events sponsored by the military. For this class of respondents, the comments were negative in tone: o “A repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would make my family very uncomfortable attending military functions.” o “I will limit my children’s exposure to same sex partners. I can assume that will mean not going to command family functions and family support groups. I will continue to attend any adult function as I normally would.” Mixed respondent class. The most frequently expressed themes for comments made by the Mixed class indicate the variation within this broad category of respondents: spouse effects, equal rights,
Page 156

child effects, unit effects, and personal values. Notably, this group reflects both ends of the spectrum. For example, the issue of equal rights was not frequently raised by individuals in the Negative respondent class. In sum, the Mixed class represents a mixture of perspectives on the perceived effects of repeal. Item 36 - Key themes by Service of military spouse. We also examined the comments by the military branch of the respondents’ spouses to see if Service affiliation corresponded in some way with the issues raised in these comments. Across all Services, respondents most frequently expressed their concerns about how repeal of DADT might affect their military spouses. Within the “Military spouse effects” code, the most frequently expressed subcodes were either general (“overall”) issues or concerns about the military spouse’s privacy. In addition, respondents also frequently expressed concerns about the potential effects of repeal on their children. This only exception to this was the Coast Guard. Finally, with the exception of comments made by Marine Corps spouses, “equal rights” emerged as a frequently noted theme across the Services. Comments regarding the respondents’ personal values and the potential repeal of DADT were common across all five Services. There were no clear differences in the distribution of comment tone by Service; there were positive and negative comments about personal values across all of the Service categories. Item 36—Key themes by respondent age group. Finally, we explored the leading themes by the age group of the respondent. Overall, few differences appeared across age groups with the exception of the 41 and older age group. For respondents in the 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, and 36-40 age groups, spouse and child effects were the two most frequently expressed themes; comments addressing equal rights were also common for these four groups of respondents. However, the 41 and older age group differed slightly, in that, after spouse effects, personal values and unit effects were the most frequently noted themes. Equal rights was not noted as often in this older group. 7.4 Results for item 44—Additional comments about family readiness or other effects of repeal

Overall, the findings from our analysis of the item 44 comments were not strikingly different from our results for item 36 comments. The distribution of comment tones was about the same as that for item 36 when viewed across the different subgroups within the respondent sample. And the leading themes, both overall and by subgroup, are also very similar. In the following pages, where those similarities exist we refer the reader to the previous discussion around item 36 for details about the meaning of particular thematic codes. When appropriate, however, we point out new findings and provide additional details.
Page 157

It should be noted that the significant overlap between the findings for the two questions is not a coincidence, but rather a product of how the two questions were worded and how respondents completed their surveys. First, in terms of wording, both items ask the respondent to comment on how she believes a repeal of DADT would impact family readiness. Item 44 simply opens the floor and allows the respondent to write about “any other thoughts or opinions” she may have on the issue of repeal. Thus, because both items ask the respondent about family readiness and repeal, there is shared content across the two sets of responses. Second, and as important, the results from the larger spouse survey indicated that between the 15,646 comments written for item 36, and the nearly 22,000 comments written for item 44, 12,455 respondents answered both questions. There is thus a remarkable lack of independence between the two respondent pools as well. Indeed, in our own sample selection processes for these two items, 161 respondents appeared in both datasets. Therefore, while recognizing that these two items are not completely independent, we opted to analyze them separately. 7.4.1 Comment tone

Distribution by respondent class. For this last survey item, we again sought to determine if there were differences in comment tone among different subgroups within the sample. Table 7.6 below shows the distribution of comment tone by respondent class. The results are similar to what we found with item 36, namely, individuals in the Positive respondent class left comments that mostly had a positive tone, but they also had a large number of neutral, and a few negative, comments about repeal. Negative respondents remained markedly consistent in the tone of their comments, leaving only negative or no effect/neutral comments for those remarks that had content that the team could code. And the Mixed class remained “mixed” —for item 44, neutral comments prevailed for this group, although there were almost equal numbers of positive and negative remarks. One hundred and thirty-three of these 1,000 comments were coded by the team as either “No comment” or “irrelevant” to the discussion of DADT.

Distribution by spouse Service. Table 7.7 below shows the distribution of comment tone by the Service of the respondent’s military spouse. The relatively low numbers of comments across the Services suggests that we interpret these findings with caution—nevertheless, both Navy and Coast Guard spouses appeared to be as likely to make negative as positive comments with respect to the potential effects of repeal. The other three Services tended toward negative comment tones, although comments in all Services indicated a large proportion of “neutral” (“no effect”) comments.
Table 7.7 Item 44: Distribution of Comment Tone by Spouse Service Army Negative No Effect/Neutral Positive Rhetorical Refer to Q36 Don’t Ask Me No comment/Irrelevant 78 51 44 5 4 3 32 Navy 63 48 60 8 4 2 40 Marine Corps 82 57 40 9 3 3 31 Air Force 82 42 56 4 4 0 17 Coast Guard 62 39 63 6 3 2 15

Distribution by respondent age group. Table 7.8 shows the distribution of comment tone by respondent age group. With the exception of those respondents who were 41 or older, comments for all other age groups were fairly evenly distributed across the negative, no effect/neutral, and positive comment tones. The oldest group in this dataset, however, was more likely to leave a negative comment than either a neutral or positive one. This finding was consistent with our results for item 36.

When we focused on the content of the comments made for item 44, the following five themes emerged most frequently: spouse effects, unit effects, equal rights, personal values, and child effects. These are the same themes we saw for question 36, which is not surprising, given the overlap in the question wording. Key themes by respondent class. When we explored the leading themes by respondent class, we saw trends similar to what was found for item 36: Respondents in all three classes often wrote about repeal with respect to how it would affect their military spouses, but this was the most frequently expressed issue only for the Mixed and Negative classes. For Positive respondents, equal rights topped the list. One new theme, “forced policy,” emerged in comments from the Negative respondent class. These expressed the view that repeal of DADT—alternately phrased as “the military’s acceptance of homosexuality” —was being “forced” on the military and, by extension, would undermine efforts to maintain “normalcy” for military families: o “We feel that a set of values that we do not agree with are being shoved down our throats, it makes me sad. We feel the military works hard to make family life as normal as possible under the circumstances, and this would undermine all of that. I do not believe most people in the military (including family) approve of this repeal and so I believe if this is repealed it would have a serious negative impact overall.” Key themes by military spouse’s Service. A review of the themes in item 44 by the Service of the respondent’s military spouse indicated remarkable consistency across the Service branches, with “spouse effects” being the most frequently raised issue. The remaining themes—unit effects, child effects, equal rights—were mostly the same issues that emerged in responses to question 36.
Page 160

One new theme emerged in the Coast Guard comments, which was “keep private lives private.” Comments regarding the disclosure of sexual preference, public displays of affection, or the impact of openly gay Service members discussing their sexuality in the workplace received this code. Many of the general comments were neutral on this topic, with the respondent generally arguing that as long as private lives were kept private, there would be no disruption to unit effectiveness: o o “Unimportant, not an issue, unless overly gay behavior is allowed.” “I am not brave enough to join the military and I believe anyone who is willing to make all of the sacrifices and fight for our country, I say let them. Just make it so no one talks about their sexual orientation.” Key themes by respondent age group. Finally, we looked at leading themes by respondent age group. Again, the main themes were consistent with responses to question 36, with spouse, child, and unit effects being important issues across all respondent age groups. The issue of equal rights again emerged as important, but in contrast to the results for item 36, this was a theme that appeared in comments from the 41 and older age group as well. 7.5 Conclusions

The fixed-response items in the survey were intended to assess the impact of repeal on military spouses. This analysis of the open-ended items on the survey reinforces the finding that spouses believe that repeal will not affect them directly. However, many expressed concerns about the impact on their Service member spouse or children, which the fixed-response items were not designed to address. For this comment analysis, we purposively selected more comments from those who had given mixed responses on the survey because this was the group about which we knew the least. However, we also looked at comments from both the Positive and Negative respondent classes in order to ensure that we were looking at the full range of views. Our findings suggest that this Mixed group shared perspectives with both the Positive and Negative respondent classes both in terms of comment tone and the themes they addressed. Most comments offered by the Mixed group were neutral, with the remaining comments almost equally divided between those that were positive and negative. The themes similarly reflected a middle position, addressing the same issues raised by the Positive and Negative respondents: effects on their spouses and children, unit effects, equal rights, the ability of gays and lesbians to serve freely, and personal values.